As my friend Andrew Kent notes in his characteristically interesting post on the top-side briefing in Hernández v. Mesa (the cross-border shooting case in which the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on February 18), I'
Latest in Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights
Hernandez v. Mesa has the potential to generate a very important decision by the Supreme Court, impacting foreign intelligence surveillance, drone strikes, and many other U.S. government activities abroad.
The courts may be the likeliest branch of government to decide in the near future whether women must register for Selective Service.
In September, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals grappled for the first time with the question of how firearm regulatory rules apply to 3D printed guns.
My friend and Brookings colleague Jonathan Rauch is working on a journalistic project, for which he is taking an interesting reporting approach: He's soliciting input from Lawfare readers. I've posted his query below and hope people have time to respond. Jonathan is a contributing editor of the Atlantic who writes thoughtful, high-impact articles; and the topic he's writing about—how to identify and defend liberal-democratic red-lines should the Trump Administration cross any—is certainly important.
Here's his query:
On October 28th, a federal judge in New York rejected a proposed settlement to the ongoing litigation concerning the New York City Police Department’s surveillance of Muslim communities in and around the city. This post examines the case and the NYPD Inspector General's role in it.
The FBI has released its report on hate crimes in 2015, tallying a startling jump in Islamophobic attacks.
This paper examines this gatekeeper function US industry plays in surveillance and recommends surveillance reforms that will reinforce that function without denying necessary government access to information.
To what extent would the First Amendment allow Congress to pass a law allowing the government to target speech that encourages individual acts of terrorism, either by shutting down websites or by prosecuting the “speakers” themselves?