- Ph.D., Harvard University, 2015
- J.D., Harvard Law School, 2013
- B.A., Yale University, 2007
Anna Lvovsky is an Academic Fellow at Columbia Law School.
Her scholarship examines criminal law and procedure, constitutional law, and evidence, focusing especially on the legal and cultural dimensions of policing, judicial uses of professional knowledge, and the regulation of gender, sexuality, and morality. Her current articles center on judicial deference to police expertise and the role of moral judgment in the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
Lvovsky’s book manuscript, Queer Expertise: Urban Policing and the Discovery of the Gay World, 1920-1970, under contract with the University of Chicago Press, examines how police departments worked alongside scientific experts and the popular media to shape public perceptions of gay men in the United States. As a dissertation, the manuscript received the 2016 Julien Mezey Dissertation Award from the Association for the Study of Law, Culture, and the Humanities.
Prior to coming to Columbia, Lvovsky clerked for Judge Michael Boudin of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and for Judge Gerard E. Lynch of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
She received her J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she was articles co-chair of the Harvard Law Review and the recipient of the LGBTQ Writing Prize. She received her Ph.D. in the History of American Civilization from Harvard University.
- Criminal law and procedure
- Constitutional law
- Legal history
- Gender and sexuality law
- “The Judicial Presumption of Police Expertise,” 130 Harvard Law Review, forthcoming, 2017
- “Our Communitarian Fourth Amendment,” work in progress
- Queer Expertise: Urban Policing and the Discovery of the Gay World, 1920-1970, University of Chicago Press, forthcoming
- “Cruising in Plain View: Clandestine Surveillance and the Unique Insights of Anti-Homosexual Policing,” 43 Journal of Urban History, forthcoming, 2017
- Note, “The Province of the Jurist: Judicial Resistance to Expert Testimony on Eyewitnesses as Institutional Rivalry,” 126 Harvard Law Review 2381, 2013