hlr-preemption-check

Preemption Check (hlr-preemption-check)

In legal scholarship, "preemption" means: has someone already published your argument? Running this search before you write is the single highest-return habit in the field — discovering that your claim appeared in a 2024 article after you have drafted 25,000 words is the classic wasted summer. A clean preemption check both protects originality and sharpens your contribution against the nearest prior work.

When to trigger

• You have a candidate thesis and have not yet written the body
• You are about to claim "no one has argued X" or "first to address Y"
• A draft is done and you want to confirm nothing close appeared while you wrote
• An editor or colleague says "isn't this just [Author]'s point?"

Where to search (run all four; do not stop at one)

Source	What it catches	Note
SSRN / bepress	Working papers and forthcoming articles not yet in print	Catches the most recent, still-in-press work — the highest preemption risk
Westlaw / Lexis journals databases	Published law-review articles, full text	Use field-restricted and date-restricted queries
HeinOnline	Deep historical law-review archive, PDF page images	Best for older and exact-pinpoint history of an idea
Google Scholar	Cross-disciplinary and gray-literature reach	Catches non-law work and citation chains

How to search well

1. Search the claim, not just the topic. Anyone can find articles on "qualified immunity"; search the specific move — e.g., "qualified immunity" + "common-law indemnification" + your distinctive hook.
2. Vary vocabulary. Authors name the same idea differently; run synonyms and the doctrinal terms of art, not only your coinage.
3. Date-bound and re-run. Restrict to the last 2-3 years for in-press risk, then re-run the search right before submission — SSRN updates daily during the seasons.
4. Follow the citation web. When you find the nearest neighbor, read what it cites and what cites it.
5. Read the abstracts and intros, not just titles — preemption hides in the framing, not the keyword.

Reading the result (three outcomes)

• Genuinely new → state originality precisely and cite the nearest neighbors as the literature you advance (hand to hlr-argument-structure for engagement).
• Partially preempted → refine the claim to the part that remains open; recast the contribution ("prior work shows A; this piece shows the stronger/different B"). Loop hlr-thesis-and-contribution.
• Fully preempted → change the claim or the angle before investing in the draft. Better now than after.

Checklist

• Searched SSRN, Westlaw/Lexis, HeinOnline, and Google Scholar — not just one
• Searched the specific argument, with synonyms and terms of art, not only the topic
• Found and read the 3-5 nearest-neighbor pieces (intros + abstracts)
• Stated exactly how the claim differs from each nearest neighbor
• Date-restricted pass for in-press work; plan to re-run before submission
• Any "first to" language is backed by the search, or removed

Anti-patterns

• Searching only the topic ("free speech") instead of the argument — everything looks preempted or nothing does
• Relying on a single database (especially skipping SSRN, where in-press preemption lives)
• Searching once, months before submission, and never re-running
• Hiding the nearest competitor instead of citing and distinguishing it
• Keeping a "first to address" claim the search cannot support

Preemption is not the same as the literature review

A preemption check protects originality: has this argument been published? The literature review in the body does different work — it situates the claim among the scholarship a generalist editor expects you to engage (handled inside hlr-argument-structure). The same searches feed both: the nearest neighbors you find here become the works you distinguish in the body. Do not let a clean preemption result excuse a thin literature engagement, and do not let a thorough literature review substitute for the targeted, claim-level preemption search — they answer different questions.

Worked micro-pattern (illustrative)

A hypothetical author plans to argue that a doctrine D should be abolished. A topic-level search for "D" returns hundreds of hits and feels hopeless. Re-running the search at the argument level — "D" + "abolition" + the distinctive ground the author relies on — surfaces only two close pieces: one argues for narrowing D (not abolishing it), the other abolishes D on different grounds. The verdict is partially preempted: the claim survives, recast as "prior work narrows D or abolishes it on ground X; this Article abolishes it on the stronger ground Y." The contribution is now sharper because of the search. (Counts and grounds illustrative.)

Output format

【Claim searched】the specific argument (not the topic)
【Databases】SSRN / Westlaw-Lexis / HeinOnline / Scholar [all run? Y/N]
【Nearest neighbors】the 3-5 closest pieces (author, year, the move they make)
【Verdict】new / partially preempted / preempted
【Refinement】how the claim now differs from each neighbor
【Next】hlr-argument-structure (if new) or hlr-thesis-and-contribution (if recast)

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — SSRN, Westlaw, Lexis, HeinOnline access notes
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — sourcing discipline for originality claims