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
Reports that the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis has gathered intelligence on journalists are troubling—especially because the office, properly run, has a vital role in protecting the country.
New documents from DHS’s intelligence and analysis unit show how the office marginalized civil rights and civil liberties review of intelligence products.
My adventures as an intelligence subject of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Supreme Court has severely curtailed—and in many cases effectively eliminated—the ability to sue federal officials to vindicate constitutional rights. Congress can force courts to entertain these suits by enacting statutory qui tam remedies.
The protests ignited by the police killing of George Floyd have put a spotlight on the legal doctrine of qualified immunity—one of many structural factors that makes it difficult to hold police officers accountable for wrongdoing.
The German Constitutional Court ruled that German espionage activity must conform to the country’s constitution, even if conducted overseas on non-German citizens. What’s in the ruling?
What should courts do when people challenge pandemic containment measures imposed by state governments and the federal government?
A national commission just recommended mandatory draft registration for women. While proponents agree that this is good for the military, few have examined how it might also be good for women.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that incidental collection of U.S. persons’ communications under Section 702 does not violate the Fourth Amendment, but raised constitutional questions related to querying databases containing these communications.
Jed Rubenfeld is incorrect; the Good Samaritan provision of Section 230 does not turn internet platforms into First Amendment state actors.