Preface.

• Author: Bloom, Max J.

Debates over federalism, the treatment of religious exercise, and the judicial role in regulating the administrative state stand out as pivotal features of our current legal discourse. In this Issue, the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy has the great privilege of presenting Articles on each of these topics: addressing the role of the states in formulating drug policy, arguing that Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled, and calling for judges to repudiate the major questions doctrine on textualist grounds.

Our first Article, by Branton Nestor, dives into the debate surrounding Employment Division v. Smith, which held that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if they incidentally burden religious practice. Nestor argues that Smith has become irreconcilable with the Court's broader Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses jurisprudence, undermining the weight of the decision for purposes of stare decisis. Our second Article, by Chad Squitieri, addresses the major questions doctrine, a canon of statutory interpretation that allows courts to reject statutory constructions that delegate the resolution of "major questions" to administrative agencies, and which several Justices have proposed as an alternative or supplement to the nondelegation doctrine. Squitieri contends that textualists should reject the doctrine, as it requires judges to step outside their judicial role in determining whether a particular question is in fact "major." Finally, we conclude with a Book Review, by Paul J. Larkin, Jr., reviewing Professor Jonathan H. Adler's recent collection of essays, MARIJUANA FEDERALISM: UNCLE SAM AND MARY JANE. Larkin, using the essays as a jumping-off point to discuss the curious nature of our contemporary drug policy, critiques the set of conflicting federal and state policies that have developed with respect to drug laws, suggests that the problem is ripe for congressional intervention, and offers thoughts on what solutions might be practicable.

In addition to these Articles, it is always a pleasure to present writing from our own members. We are happy to conclude this issue with a Note from Jasjaap Sidhu, one of our student editors, in which he discusses the "watershed" exception to the Court's general doctrine that new rules of constitutional law do not apply retroactively on collateral review. Sidhu argues that the...