---
name: hlr-sources-and-bluebook
description: Use when citing authority in a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece — pinpoint citations, the authority hierarchy, and The Bluebook (which HLR co-publishes). Governs how sources are cited and weighted; it does not build the footnote apparatus end-to-end (hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check) or write the prose.
---

# Sources and Bluebook (hlr-sources-and-bluebook)

HLR is one of the **four student journals that publish The Bluebook** (with the Columbia Law Review, the
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal). Citations are not an afterthought here —
they are the connective tissue of the argument, and they will be checked line by line. This skill governs
**which authority you cite, how much it counts, and how it is formatted** to Bluebook standard. HLR
instructs authors that footnotes conform to **The Bluebook, 22nd edition** (the current edition; confirm
on the submissions page before filing, since editions are periodically revised).

## When to trigger

- Drafting or revising footnotes that carry doctrinal weight
- Unsure which of several authorities to cite, or in what order
- Cite formatting is inconsistent (signals, short forms, pincites)
- Preparing the manuscript so it can survive the student-editor cite-check

## Authority hierarchy (cite the strongest available)

| Tier | Authority | Weight |
|------|-----------|--------|
| Primary, binding | Constitution, statutes, controlling precedent (the relevant court) | Strongest — cite first |
| Primary, persuasive | Out-of-jurisdiction cases, lower courts, legislative history | Use to fill gaps; flag as persuasive |
| Secondary, authoritative | Treatises, Restatements, leading law-review articles | Support and framing, not a substitute for primary |
| Secondary, general | Student notes, blogs, news | Last resort; sparingly and transparently |

> Rule of thumb: **never let a secondary source stand in for available primary authority.** If a
> proposition of law rests only on a treatise, find and cite the case or statute behind it.

## Pinpoint citation (pincites are non-negotiable)

1. **Pin every proposition.** Cite the exact page (and where relevant the paragraph or footnote) the
   proposition comes from — not just the first page of the case or article.
2. **Quote accurately and pin the quote.** Every quotation needs a pincite to its source page.
3. **Match the signal to the relationship.** *No signal* = directly states; *See* = supports;
   *See also* = additional support; *Cf.* = analogous; *But see* = contradicts; *Contra* = directly
   contradicts. Misused signals are a classic cite-check correction.
4. **Use short forms correctly.** *Id.* for the immediately preceding authority; *supra* / *hereinafter*
   per Bluebook for later short cites. Keep them unambiguous after edits move footnotes around.
5. **Order authorities within a footnote** by the Bluebook ordering rules (constitutions, statutes, cases
   by court and date, then secondary), not by the order you found them.

## Bluebook specifics that trip authors

- **Typeface conventions** differ between law-review footnotes (large-and-small caps, italics) and
  practitioner documents — HLR uses the academic conventions.
- **Case names**: italicized in text; follow abbreviation tables for reporters and courts.
- **Parentheticals** that explain *why* a cited case matters strengthen a footnote (and editors expect
  them for non-obvious support).
- **String cites**: order and signal-group them correctly; do not pad with redundant authority.

## Checklist

- [ ] Every legal proposition rests on the strongest available authority (primary over secondary)
- [ ] Every cite has a pincite; every quotation is pinned to its page
- [ ] Signals (See, Cf., But see, Contra) match the actual relationship
- [ ] Short forms (Id., supra) are correct and survive footnote reordering
- [ ] Authorities within each footnote are Bluebook-ordered (22nd edition rules)
- [ ] Explanatory parentheticals added where support is non-obvious
- [ ] Academic (law-review) typeface conventions applied

## Anti-patterns

- Citing a treatise or article where binding primary authority exists
- "Page 1" cites with no pincite to the actual proposition
- Wrong signals (using *See* for a proposition the source states directly, or no signal where you needed *See*)
- Dangling *Id.* / *supra* after footnotes were rearranged in editing
- String cites padded with redundant or off-point authority

## Output format

```
【Authority audit】each key proposition → strongest cite (primary? Y/N)
【Pincites】every cite + quote pinned? [Y/N]
【Signals】reviewed against relationship? [Y/N]
【Short forms】Id./supra consistent after reordering? [Y/N]
【Bluebook ordering】within-footnote order correct? [Y/N]
【Next】hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check (apparatus + source-pull readiness)
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — Bluebook, citators (Shepard's/KeyCite), reference managers
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — HLR's role as a Bluebook co-publisher