In times of war, the government acts to suppress threats to national security, often curtailing or restricting American civil liberties. Over the course of American history, the Supreme Court has reviewed this legal conflict between civil liberties and national security policies during war. Scholars generally observe the Court’s judicial review as deferential to the government. The War on Terror presents new and different challenges to American civil liberties. While this legal conflict has emerged again under the conditions of a war against terrorism, the war itself is markedly unlike past wars in American history. This research seeks to explain how the Supreme Court approaches deference in the Post-9/11 context. Using previous wartime contexts as a reference for Court behavior, this study examines the Court’s deliberative review process in three Post-9/11 cases involving national security policies and civil liberties.
Oppler, Jacob, "Liberty, Security, and Judicial Review in the War on Terror: An Analysis of Supreme Court Approaches to Deference in a Post-9/11 Context" (2015). Senior Independent Study Theses. Paper 6908.
Constitutional Law | Military, War, and Peace | National Security Law
Supreme Court, Judicial Review, National Security, Civil Liberties, Judicial Deference
Bachelor of Arts
Senior Independent Study Thesis Exemplar
© Copyright 2015 Jacob Oppler