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 Second Amendment doesn’t offer cover to bring a gun to the polls, nor to use one to intimidate voters.
A Fifth Circuit panel held that the Selective Service’s male-only registration requirement did not violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. What’s the significance of the ruling?
New documents shed light on how the intelligence and analysis unit at DHS was unleashed.
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?