Archives for 2019 Spring

News – Post class

News (NOT for the exam)

It’s Time to Admit That the Military Commissions Have Failed

A stunning conflict of interest ruling about one of the military commission judges – and more than one judge has the same problem.

“the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s stunning, unanimous decision in In re Al-Nashiri III to throw out three-and-a-half years’ worth of pretrial rulings by a Guantanamo military commission in the case of the alleged USS Cole mastermind—all because Air Force Colonel Vance Spath, the judge presiding over those proceedings, was actively pursuing employment from the Justice Department as an immigration judge”

The opinion – In re Al-Nashiri, No. 18-1279, 2019 WL 1601994 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 16, 2019) while this is NOT exam material, if you have any interest in the military commissions, you should read this opinion. It is short and well written.

Exam Blog

All questions and answers to student inquiries will be posted here.

Can we make a table of references with page numbers at the front of our book?

Yes, as long as you do it on the existing pages of the book.

Foreign intelligence warrant exception arguably exists in lower courts but requires reasonableness (In Re Sealed Case and In Re Directives) –> who can the US gov surveil under this reasonableness standard?

Reasonableness in In Re Sealed Case refers to whether FISA procedures are a reasonable approximation of 4th Amendment requirements. (This is in comparison to Title III, which the court reminds us goes beyond 4th Amendment requirements.) While the court mentions the assumed right of the president to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance under the Constitution, this is not at issue because Congress passed a statute that controls. 

The Protect America Act requires a reasonable belief that person is outside US –> can the US gov surveil US persons and non-US persons outside the US under this reasonable belief?

The PPA was superseded by subsequent legislation so we do not need to worry about it. 

Is the stored communications act unconstitutional? (Unconstitutional insofar as having a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails over 180 days old) Or is that just applicable under the 6th circuit?

Has the Supreme Court ruled on the question? Where does that leave us?

We learned that the US Constitution doesn’t allow tort suits for damages against the federal gov, but my understanding is the FTCA allows tort suits for damages against federal gov entities and their employees in the course and scope of their jobs. What am I missing?

By passing the FTCA, Congress provided a narrow waiver of sovereign immunity that allows some tort type claims to be made against the federal government.

Regarding the relationship between the FTCA and the Bivens action, is the following correct? If not, what are the correct answers?

o Federal officer negligently acts in course & scope –> subject to FTCA but not Bivens action
o Federal officer intentionally acts unconstitutionally while outside course & scope –> subject to Bivens action but not FTCA
o Federal officer intentionally acts unconstitutionally in course & scope –> subject to amended FTCA but not Bivens action
o In Hernandez, would the border agent be subject to FTCA if the case did in fact meet the Boumediene requirements?

I am assuming that you mean the officer acted intentionally – say, beating a prisoner – and the act was unconstitutional. You generally do not see an officer whose intent is to violate the constitution. If the officer is outside of course and scope he or she is not sheltered by governmental immunity and can be sued through ordinary state tort law. If the officer is within course and scope he or she is sheltered by governmental immunity. If the action fits into the current FTCA, then you have to sue under the FTCA. The amendments to the FTCA added several law enforcement related intentional torts. If the officer’s actions don’t fit within the FTCA you can try a Bivens action, but the court has been reluctant to expand Bivens so your claim will need to fit into existing Bivens precedent for your likely to be dismissed. If the officer is not a law enforcement officer, it is unlikely that intentional torts would be within his or her course and scope of employment.

As to Hernandez – where did the injury occur (not the act)? What are the geographic limits of the FTCA?

Under Sec. 798 of the Espionage Act, the law requires intent to prosecute, but Sec. 798(d) allows prosecution for sharing military documents and Sec. 794 for knowingly disclosing classified information without mention of intent. It seems like the Sec. 798 intent requirement is meaningless. What am I missing?

What do you have to intend to do? Do you have to intend to break the law or do you have to intend to act?

Do the basic principles of the UN and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms fall under HRL?

Human rights law is a squishy definition, but since the UN charter is about relations between states it probably does not fit in the traditional definition of human rights law. See:

If you receive National Security letter, can you consult a lawyer, under the Patriot Act?

Think back to Doe – did he consult a lawyer? What happened in his case that resulted in an amendment to FISA?

Targets of FISA warrants can be US or non US person, but if US person, they cannot be considered foreign power or agent thereof solely upon basis of activities protected by 1st amendment, correct?

Think back to the statute or the constitution – why would this violate the 1st Amendment?

a. As a subpart to this question – what is the Foreign Registration Act in the context of First Amendment activities by foreign powers, or agents thereof?

Is the Foreign Agents Registration Act about speech? Check out this analysis by DOJ:

Specifically, we talk about the government getting FISA warrants, but just to put this into perspective, which specific governmental agencies seek/use FISA warrants? This is a simple question I know but I thought it couldn’t help to clarify.

Look back to the statute – – it only specifies a federal officer and approval by the AG. While these are mostly FBI, it is not limited to the FBI.

How are national security searches using FISA not criminal searches when the information gathered can be used in criminal prosecutions? Does this dilemma speak to my question (6) concerning the misuse or comingling of investigations?

Can you clarify the new “Wall” for national security that we operate under? Patriot Act encourages the sharing of information between agencies in a post-9/11 world. However, we do not like the mis-use of FISA or co-mingling of national security investigations with criminal investigations. So what is the correct operations/procedures? I understand this is a broad question, if you would like me to be more specific I can.

a. Is this where the Chaperon Requirement plays in?

These three are really part of the same problem – what happened to the primary purpose test, which resulted in the chaperone rule to make sure that agency stuck to the primary purpose. This gets sorted in In re Sealed Case Nos. 02-001, 02-002, at p. 655 in the book, which looks at the impact of the FISA amendments changing the test for whether FISA can be used from whether foreign intelligence must be the primary purpose of the warrant to a significant purpose. From the opinion at 658:

…[The Truong] analysis, in our view, rested on a false premise and the line the court sought to draw was inherently unstable, unrealistic, and confusing. The false premise was the assertion that once the government moves to criminal prosecution, its “foreign policy concerns” recede. As we have discussed in the first part of the opinion, that is simply not true as it relates to counterintelligence. In that field the government’s primary purpose is to halt the espionage or terrorism efforts, and criminal prosecutions can be, and usually are, interrelated with other techniques used to frustrate a foreign power’s efforts…

FISA requires FISA warrants for surveillance (not addressing bulk collection here) –> does the FISA warrant allow surveillance of foreign powers, foreign power agents, and lone wolves only inside the US or also outside the US?
FISA has special requirements for bulk collection –> who can the US gov surveil through bulk collection if the US gov follows these requirements?
For surveillance of foreigners on foreign soil that does not involve US persons, does the US gov have to meet any requirements at all?
These three raise different aspects of the same issue – non-US persons inside the US and outside the US. There are no constitutional issues in surveilling non-US persons outside the US. The problem comes in because those non-US persons outside the US may be communicating with US-persons outside the US or with anyone inside the US. Look at the language from the statute in what has to be certified to get 702 warrant:
“(I) ensure that an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and

(II) prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States;”

(II) tells us that these warrants can reach recipients in the US, which would require some sort of warrant, it just cannot be used to solely target US persons or persons in the US. In addition, the statute gives the government the legal tools to require the telcom providers to provide access to the data.

Title III requires a special warrant for electronic surveillance –> who can the US gov surveil if it obtains this special warrant?

It is Title III of The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 – an ordinary criminal law bill. It is the general standard for 4th Amendment warrants that include wiretaps. Thinking back to ACJ – are there any limits on who you can search with proper 4th Amendment warrant? Why do we have special laws such as FISA for national security cases?


April 16

Exam info

We will talk about what open book means for the exam.

Proposed standard:

Tabs (indicating chapters or page numbers for example) and margin notes and highlighting, but no sticky notes with substantive notes/reading notes.

Allowed books: The Dycus National Security Law text and the supplement.


Tracking Phones, Google Is a Dragnet for the Police

Julian Assange’s charges are a direct assault on press freedom, experts warn

Digging into the details of the indictment against Julian Assange

Extradition is tied to the specific charges, which, in theory, limits the ability of the DOJ to add espionage charges after extradition if they are not part of the charges the extradition request is based on. We refused to extradite IRA terrorists to Briton in the past because our politicians were concerned about the votes of IRA sympathizers in places such as Boston.

Julian Assange Got What He Deserved

You Don’t Have to Like Julian Assange to Defend Him

A number of iconic constitutional rights cases involved not very lovable people.


Finish materials from last class. Discuss Wikileaks in the news.

April 11


Fox News: Secret Service under fire after agent testifies agency inserted malicious thumb drive into computer.

You can’t make this stuff up.


Read Chapter 10 to 3. IHL Revised: The Geneva Protocols Additional (286). These are the conventions that have been ratified by the United States and have been enabled by statute. We want to learn the basic principles:

  • the principle of humanity (the “elementary considerations of humanity being reflected and expressed in the Martens clause)
  • the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives;
  • the principle of proportionality,
  • the principle of military necessity (from which flows the prohibition of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering.

Slides – Chapter 10 – International Humanitarian Law

These contain the text of the protocols we will review.

Back to Chapter 36.


This is substantive law – how does the silent witness work and what legal issues does it pose?


We are reading this section just to see how far the courts will go to limit the rights of a defendant they believe is a very bad actor.


This is a short philosophical discussion of whether we need special courts for national security cases?

Slides – Chapter 36 – Secret Evidence in Criminal Trials – complete

I do not know if we will be able to finish this in class. Anything we do not finish we will carry over. There will not be any additional assignment for the last class.


Red Cross, Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols (2011)

This an excellent and brief summary of the provisions of all of the Geneva Protocols and the 1977 modifications which the US signed but never ratified or enabled.

DoD Law of War Manual – June 2015 Updated Dec 2016

April 9


White House whistleblower says Trump administration overturned 25 security clearance denials

Nielsen departure could deal a blow to Trump administration’s cybersecurity efforts


Chapter 20 – Shadow War

This is a short chapter reviewing the tension between using the military, with its extensive formal oversight process, and paramilitary/contractors for covert operations.

2008 Mumbai Attacks

Slides – Chapter 20 – Shadow War

Chapter 36 – Secret Evidence in Criminal Trials to B. USING “SILENT” WITNESSES TO INTRODUCE SECRET EVIDENCE, p. 1134

Slides – Chapter 36 – Secret Evidence in Criminal Trials

April 4


The Cybersecurity 202: Arrest at Mar-a-Lago spotlights simple but pervasive threat of thumb drives

Gizmodo: Malware Is (Probably) Coming… If You Pirated Game of Thrones.

CAIR to Challenge Constitutionality of Federal Watchlist at April 4 Virginia Court Hearing

More than 1,000 private entities have access to terrorism watch list, government says


Finish Chapter 15.

Slides – Chapter 15 – Cyber Operations (revised)


Slides – Chapter 19 – Covert Actions


EO 12333

We are not going to parse this in detail. It is also in the book at p. 518. The key take away is that it is an Executive Order, not a statute or even a regulation – what does that tell us about the President’s discretion in following its details?

A student asked the very relevant question – does Section 702 of the FISA Amendments replace the original FISA provision.

The revised 702 (1881a) procedures do not displace the original FISA procedures.  You can see how they fit by looking at statute structure:

This shows that the amendments are a new section, not one that displaces the previous sections.

April 2


The New York Times: The Secret Death Toll of America’s Drones.

Bezos investigator’s accusations of Saudi hacking raise questions for government


Finish discussion of Chapter 26

Slides – Chapter 26 – Screening for Security

Read Chapter 15 and the supplement materials. (This was previously assigned.) These are the cyber war materials. I have postponed these from where they are in the book order because I think they make more sense after we have discussed the basics of the internet and data collection/surveillance. We will begin discussion of these materials if we have time after finishing Chapter 26.

Slides – Chapter 15 – Cyber Operations

In Cyberwar, There are No Rules

This is an interesting background article that just came to my attention. Read it if you have time as background.


DoD Cybersecurity Chart (2019)

Department of Defense Cyber Strategy – Summary (2018)

National Cyber Strategy (White House) (2018)

Home Land Security Cybersecurity Strategy (2018)


March 28


Whatever is current on the release of the Mueller Report


Finish discussion of Chapter 26.

Chapter 26 – Screening for Security

This is fairly short.


Firesign Theater

March 26

LSU National Security Event

We would also like to take this time to invite you to our upcoming event Classified Communications: Messaging for National Security & Foreign Affairs on April 8th featuring Rear Admiral John Kirby, U.S. Navy (Retired) and Gordon Johndroe.

The second annual Academy of Applied Politics Speaker Series hosted by the Reilly Center for Media & Public Affairs, Cornerstone Government Affairs and Taylor Porter will be held on April 8, 2019 at the LSU Manship School of Mass Communication’s Journalism Building. “Classified Communications: Messaging for National Security and Foreign Affairs” featuring Rear Admiral John Kirby, USN (ret) and Vice President of Government Operations Communications at the The Boeing Company Gordon Johndroe will focus on how mass communication professionals cover and disperse military, foreign affairs and national security information. The event will investigate methods the military and national security organizations use to keep the public informed in peacetime, conflict and war.


Stingrays under Carpenter?



We will focus on the current application of 702 and bulk collection from Chapters 23 and 25, rather than the historical development leading to them. This should take only part of the class time.

Slides – Chapter 23 & 25 – Programmatic Surveillance and Bulk Collection

Read Chapter 26. This chapter raises a lot of current hot topics and should be a good discussion. Come prepared to talk.


FISA and Bulk Collection

50 U.S.C. 1881a&b – Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons

ODNI, Statistical Transparency Report Regarding the Use of National Security Authorities for Calendar Year 2017 (ODNI Transparency Report),

Summary: The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017

GAO, Summary of the Substantive Provisions of S. 2010, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017, and H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty Act of 2017 (2017)

The 1967 War and the birth of international terrorism

March 21


Satirical Site on NSA 702 surveillance

5G Security Concerns


Finish Chapter 23 and read Chapter 25.


Slides – Chapter 22 – Congressional authority national security surveillance (from last class, revised to clarify “lone wolf”)


We are going to look at the statute itself – I think it is hard to see the structure with the slides. This will clarify the lone wolf provision and the statute’s own definition of a United States Person.

Why Is the Lone Wolf FISA Provision Never Used? And Just How Broad is the FISC Understanding of Group Agency?

Global Internet Backbone 2018

March 19th


Senate Rejects Trump’s Border Emergency Declaration

Senate passes resolution to end U.S. involvement in Yemen’s civil war


Chapter 22 and Chapter 23 to p. 677.

Slides – Chapter 22 – Congressional authority national security surveillance


S. Select Comm. to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church Committee), Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, S. Rep. No. 94-755, bk. II, at 6-7 (1976). (Church Committee Report V 2)

Online Assignment – Part 5

I have renumbered the assignments for clarity.


The materials for the Carpenter case have been posted.

Online Assignment – Part 4


Part 4 – Chapter 24 – Third-Party Records – Targeted Collection – has been posted on Moodle. This does not include Carpenter, which will be posted separately because it is a long presentation.

Online Assignment – Part 2 & 3


Chapter 21 and supplement. Chapter 24 and supplement. (Note – D. THE IMPACT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY in Chapter 21 has been replaced by the Carpenter case in the supplement materials for Chapter 24. We will read review Carpenter with Chapter 24, since it applies to both.)

These chapter deal with traditional 4th amendment questions and the extent that there are special circumstances for national security law. We will return to the intervening chapters, which deal with data collection under specific national security statutes after we have reviewed these chapters.

Online Assignments

The 2nd (no reading required) and 3rd (Chapter 21) online assignments are now posted. The video and the narrated PowerPoint are the same content, you do not need to listen to both. The video is provided as a convenience and to meet ADA accessibility requirements.


US v. Biswell, 406 US 311, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d 87 (1972)

New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987), but see: NY rejects “closely regulated industry” exception on state constitutional grounds – People v. Scott, 79 N.Y.2d 474, 593 N.E.2d 1328, 583 N.Y.S.2d 920(N.Y. 1992)

These are resource cases for the discussion of the regulated industries exception to the 4th Amendment. You should have seen this before in ACJ.



Online Assignments – Part 1


NSA has halted a counterterrorism program relying on phone records amid doubts about its utility


The History of Administrative Searches and their Relevance to National Security Law

Camara v. Municipal Court City and County, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) par. 23-56.

The narrated slides, the video of the slides (you only need to listen to one) and the quiz are posted to the course page in Moodle. (The files are too big for the blog.) You need to read the case, listen to the presentation, and do the quiz.

Resource Cases

Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959)

See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 18 L. Ed. 2d 943, 87 S. Ct. 1737 (1967)

March 7, March 12, and March 14

These classes will be covered with online materials done asynchronously – which means that you can read the materials, listen to the presentations, and work the quizzes on your own time frame. You do not need to log in during what would have been the class period. The quizzes count toward class participation points but are not a separate component of the final exam. I will start posting the materials next week and I can strongly recommend that you not wait until the last minute to work through them.

March 5

No class! Happy Mardi Gras!

February 28


CyberCom sent a message by taking down a troll farm on Election Day. Was Russia listening?

The Post – movie

Short documentary on the publication of the Pentagon Papers


Chapter 44 and supplement pp.218-219.


The Pentagon Papers

The Pentagon Papers Timeline

Morland, Howard. “The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It; Why We’re Telling It.” The Progressive 43.11 (1979).

What is WikiLeaks?

Pentagon Papers in the Federal Courts

This timeline is intended to capture the movement of cases, from the U.S. District Courts in two circuits to the Supreme Court of the United States.

1971 June 13 The New York Times publishes the first (of 3) excerpts from a classified Department of Defense study, popularly known as the Pentagon Papers.

June 14 Department of Justice files suit against the New York Times in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a temporary restraining order to halt publication until a court hearing could be held to hear evidence.

June 15 Judge Murray Gurfein grants the temporary restraining order stopping the presses after three days of articles. However, the judge declines the government’s request for a preliminary injunction to stop publication until after the case is decided in court. The temporary restraining order is to stay in place pending the outcome of the Department of Justice’s appeal of his ruling.

June 18 The Washington Post begins publication of its series of articles and excerpts from the Pentagon Papers. The Department of Justice files suit immediately in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop publication. Judge Gerhard Gesell denies the temporary restraining order.

June 19 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit votes 7-2 to uphold Judge Gessell’s decision and sends the case back to him to hold a hearing. Following this hearing, Judge Gesell again denies the injunction.

June 21 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit votes 7-2 to uphold Judge Gessell’s decision to denies the injunction.

June 23 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reverses Judge Gurfein’s decision to deny the injunction, and remands the case to Judge Gurfein for further review.

June 26 Oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

June 28 Grand Jury in Los Angeles indicts Daniel Ellsberg and co-conspirator Anthony Russo on charges of theft and espionage.

June 30 The U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinion, ruling 6-3 that the government proof of justifications for prior restraint was not sufficient to stop publication. Each justice issues separate opinions explaining his rationale in concurring or dissenting decisions.

1972 January Trial for Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo begins.

1973 May Case is dismissed.

February 26


5 G Security

What Happens When Techno-Utopians Actually Run a Country


Chapter 43 and supplement at pp. 216-218.


1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

OIG, Evaluation of the Department of State’s Security Clearance Process (2017)

February 21


Episode 111: This National Emergency Podcast Requires the Use of the Armed Forces – The National Security Law Podcast

10 USC 2808: Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency


Chapter 14. Targeting Terrorists. Supplement pp. 59-62.



February 19


Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States

Think of this as three legal questions:

1) how does the court determine if this is a proper emergency?

2) is the court better positioned to review the reprogramming of the money under the statutes that are triggered by the declaration?

3) how can the Supreme Court dodge this case?

California et al, v. Trump (Multistate Emergency Declaration Lawsuit)

Should the Court consider what the President says about the declaration?

Why Trump’s Emergency Mess Means Danger for the Courts


Chapter 11. How We Go to War: Lessons from Vietnam

Skip 3. Testing the Legitimacy of the War in Court, p 332 to B. LIMITING THE SCOPE OF THE VIETNAM WAR, 339. (It is replaced by Smith v. Obama.)

Supplement p. 38 to 52.

This is a long chapter that we are reading for specific content, rather than carefully parsing all of the material. You should focus on:

How did we get into Vietnam?

The Korean War was justified through the US participation in the UN rather than a declaration of war. What was the legal justification for US participation in the Vietnam War without a declaration of war?

How did Congress try to end the war?

The most important part of the chapter is D. THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION because this is the only standing legislative limit on the President’s power to unilaterally make war.

What are its requirements?

What is Congress trying to accomplish with the Resolution, i.e., what are they trying to avoid having to vote on?

Have presidents followed the Resolution?

Is it enforceable?

Smith v. Obama from the supplement reviews the justiciability of presidential war-making and the review of the necessary congressional authorization. Focus on what it adds to our existing knowledge about judicial review of presidential war-making.

Viet Nam War Resources:

The Draft and the Vietnam War

VA Data
August 4, 1964 – January 27, 1973
Total who served in all Armed Forces: 8,744,000
Deployed to Southeast Asia: 3,403,000

Battle Deaths: 47,424
Other Deaths (In Theatre): 10,785
Wounded: 153,303
Medals of Honor: 238

US Military casualties – Iraq – 4k -Afghanistan – 2k

Vietnam — Map of contemporary Vietnam –  Historical Atlas –  Pre-Vietnam War History  – War Timeline – The last US helicopter out of Vietman

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

Indonesia – Map of Indonesia – 1950-1965 – 1965-1998

Movie about the beginning of the US involvement in Vietman

February 14


CNBC: Google’s head of internet security says businesses should ignore cyber scare tactics and learn from history.

The core of the story is that most businesses are not attending to basic digital security issues and that has to be where you start if you are worried about cyberterrorism and other scary things.


Chapter 9 and supplement material on p. 19

February 12


Chapter 8 and supplement material, pp. 17-19

These readings will add nuance to our starting assumption that the constitution only applies to US persons, not aliens, outside of the US. That basic premise will still hold, but the notion of what is outside the United States will expand, and we will find that the constitution applies there, but is attenuated. We will also look more deeply into Reid, finding that even it has implicit limits on the application of the Constitution to citizens outside the US.

February 7


The Cybersecurity 202: What Trump didn’t say about the state of the union’s cybersecurity


Chapter 7 and the supplement, pages 16 & 17. This is a long chapter. We are not reading it for the deep factual record. You should be looking for the basic framework for the US legal effects of treaties, how they may be abrogated or modified, and the difference between Executive Agreements and treaties. Exactly what is the legal value of treaties on their own? What does it mean to enable a treaty by legislation? How does this affect the ability of the president to abrogate the effects of a treaty?


Slides – Chapter 7 (subject to revision)

February 5

Breaking News – Please Read This

Congressional options under the National Emergencies Act

Remember that under the Act, Congress can vote to cancel an emergency declaration. This is an analysis of the Democrats might use that to fight the declaration.


Finish Chapter 6.

Read Supplement additions and replacements, page 10-16. (Check this before you read the chapter since some material has been replaced.


Slides – Damage actions against the government

January 31


U.S. Intelligence Chiefs Contradict Trump on North Korea and Iran


See also: Trump blasts U.S. intelligence officials, disputes assessments on Iran and other global threats

An Angry Trump Pushes Back Against His Own ‘Naive’ Intelligence Officials



Be sure to read the Supplement materials, p. 1-10 that are tied to this text.


Elements of standing – Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)

Clapper – Slides 2019

January 29


Chapter 5

Check back for supplementary materials, depending on the news and class discussion.


Joint Resolution Declaring That a State of War Exists Between the Government of Germany and the Government and the People of the United States and Making Provisions to Prosecute the Same

Pub. L. No. 77-331, 55 Stat. 796 (1941)

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Joint Resolution – To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. (18 September 2001)

January 24


Trump Just Recognized a Venezuelan Opposition Leader as President. Wait, Can He Do That?


Finish Chapter 4

Check back for supplementary materials, depending on the news and class discussion.


Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2018

Chapter 4 – review


January 22


Chapter 3 – Review

National Emergencies Act

Read chapter 4 to: B. THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF’S WAR POWERS, p. 81


Isreal Maps through time

Pre-State Period – Setting borders

Israel’s Changing Borders – War and Peace

Early Years of Independence – 1948-1967

The Six Day War  June 1967 

Yom Kippur War – October 1973

January 17


Read Chapter 3.

Look at the news.


Map of Korea

Korean War Timeline

Impact on North Korea

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10340 – Steel seizure Executive Order

Constitutional Presidential Powers

Justice Jackson at Nuremberg

How might this shape his views?

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson’s view of Congress)

National Emergency Act of 1976


¦ Under the formalist view of the separation of powers, Congress makes the laws, the Executive executes the laws, and the courts interpret the laws. Taking this view, the opinion for the Court in The Steel Seizure Case held that, because President Truman’s order both made and executed policy, he had usurped the lawmaking power of Congress.

¦ In fact, the respective powers of the branches are more blurred. First, Congress can by statute delegate lawmaking power to the Executive, provided that it makes policy by establishing statutory standards for the exercise of power and that the delegation does not violate the Constitution. The vast majority of executive actions are taken in exercise of such delegated powers, subject to check by judicial review for compliance with the statutory standards and the Constitution. These actions fall into Justice Jackson’s first grouping.

¦ Second, the Executive may acquire customary authority by a systematic and consistent practice known to and not questioned by Congress. These actions fall into Justice Jackson’s “twilight zone” grouping.

¦ Third, the President, in her capacity as Commander in Chief, may act without express statutory authority in some circumstances, but dicta in The Steel Seizure Case suggest that the scope of her independent powers may depend on the de jure existence of a war, the locus of the actions, or their impact on constitutional rights and liberties, among other factors.

¦ Unlike many constitutions, ours does not vest the head of state with general emergency powers. Instead, Congress may anticipate emergencies by delegating contingent emergency powers to the executive branch by statute. Even so, several Justices in The Steel Seizure Case speculated in dicta that the President might, after all, have some kind of inherent emergency powers depending on the gravity of the emergency.

¦ Infrequently, the President acts in defiance of statutory limits or prohibitions, placing his action in Justice Jackson’s third grouping. When branches collide, the Supreme Court has taken two approaches to declaring a winner. If the constitutional text expressly vests a power in a branch, the Court enforces that assignment without trying to balance the interests of the branches. But if the constitutional text is silent about the asserted power, then the Court engages in a balancing analysis: deciding whether the degree of intrusion on the President’s powers caused by the statute is justified by an overriding need to promote objectives within Congress’s constitutional authority.

¦ Because “declaring a winner” in Justice Jackson’s third grouping requires a court either to strike down a presidential action or to declare a statute unconstitutional, all three branches try mightily to avoid a collision. The President’s lawyers push the limits of statutory construction to find some colorable statutory authority or to narrowly construe statutory limits. Congress looks the other way or acquiesces in some fashion. And the courts deploy a panoply of avoidance techniques, ranging from declining to reach the merits by invoking the standing, ripeness, state secrets, and political question doctrines, to avoiding the merits of the constitutional question by construing statutes (where possible) to sidestep the constitutional question.



January 15

Class information

Review the Class Information Page for class rules and the text and supplement.

All assignments and additional materials will be posted on this blog.


Read Chapter 1 & 2

Find a national security/counterterrorism law issue in the news.


Poll Everywhere Mobile App

The United States Constitution