In thinking about what I might say on the topic of civil liberties after 9/11, an idea that occurred to me was to give a snapshot of the Supreme Court's role in the perceived tug-of-war between national security and individual rights, arising out of the "war on terror." How has the Court responded to the government's positions? And in what ways has it attempted to strike the proper balance under the Constitution?
The Supreme Court decisions are long and, at points, exceedingly technical. But I think there are a couple of themes we can pull out, and in doing so, frame a discussion about how best to manage this apparent tension between government's duty to make this country safe on the one hand, and its obligation to keep it as free as possible on the other.
Anthony J. Colangelo,
Brief Remarks on the Supreme Court's Role after 9/11: Continuing the Legal Conversation in the War on Terror,
SMU L. Rev.