Too often, national security and personal liberties are portrayed as inversely related. This is simplistic, and also clearly wrong. After all, in the absence of security, it would be impossible to enjoy our freedoms at all. Nevertheless, some of the hardest national security choices are inevitably those that involve tradeoffs with civil liberties. The need to gather information on our enemies rubs up against expectations of privacy. The eroding line between war and law enforcement endangers principles of due process. And the need to keep secrets increasingly leads to tension with a robust free press.
Latest in Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declined on Nov. 30 to grant the government's motion for a stay of the court's preliminary injunction halting implementation of the ban on military service by transgender individuals. The court's order is available here and below.
On Nov. 23, the Trump administration filed petitions for a writ of certiorari before judgment in three lawsuits challenging its ban on military service by transgender people, preempting rulings by the courts of appeals.
The government notified two federal circuit courts that it may take its appeal of a preliminary injunction straight to the Supreme Court.
While the president can’t unilaterally revise the Constitution and overturn Supreme Court precedent, he can still create an enormous mess by trying.
The Knight Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act that seek records that about various agencies’ prepublication review policies and practices.
A federal judge’s order barring the publication of blueprints for 3D-printed guns will not eradicate the threat posed by the weapons—but it’s an important step.
A summary of significant litigation developments in Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, Karnoski v. Trump, and Stockman v. Trump.
On Aug. 25 2017, President Trump ordered the U.S. government to not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in the U.S. military. Two plaintiffs, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking to block the memorandum and sought a preliminary injunction. The court granted the preliminary injunction in Oct. 2017.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia issued two rulings on Aug. 6 in the case of Doe v. Trump.
The proposed social-media censorship bill would have wide-reaching implications if eventually passed.
The administration’s threats stand to chill not only the speech of direct targets but also that of civil servants and employees of contractors who hold clearances.