Law Commons^™

Surveillance Normalization, Christian Sundquist

Articles

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has expanded public surveillance measures in an attempt to combat the spread of the virus. As the pandemic wears on, racialized communities and other marginalized groups are disproportionately affected by this increased level of surveillance. This article argues that increases in public surveillance as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic give rise to the normalization of surveillance in day-to-day life, with serious consequences for racialized communities and other marginalized groups. This article explores the legal and regulatory effects of surveillance normalization, as well as how to protect civil rights and liberties …

The Effects Of National Security On Supreme Court Case Decisions Involving Civil Liberties, Callie Gerzanics

Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects

This research project will analyze the effects that national security laws and tensions have on civil liberties and Supreme Court case decisions. National security has been a primary objective for the United States of America for as long as wars have been fought and enemies have been made. National security continues to be a concern for the U.S. government, especially with the prominence of technology that has made the U.S. more vulnerable to breaches in security, such as cybernetic attacks. The motivations behind this project stem from a concern of how national security can influence Supreme Court decisions, police arrests, …

Justice Blackmun And Criminal Justice: A Modest Overview, Stephen L. Wasby

Akron Law Review

Justice Harry A. Blackmun was nominated for a position on the Supreme Court in 1970 by President Richard M. Nixon after the Senate rejected Nixon's nominations of Judges Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell. Blackmun, as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for eleven years, had written opinions that reflected "judicial restraint, an appreciation for the limits of judicial authority and deference to state and legislative prerogatives" as well as conservatism on defendants' rights and civil liberties issues. These strains of thought made him attractive to a president looking for someone supporting the "war …

Decoupling 'Terrorist' From 'Immigrant': An Enhanced Role For The Federal Courts Post 9/11, Victor C. Romero

Victor C. Romero

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft has utilized the broad immigration power ceded to him by Congress to ferret out terrorists among noncitizens detained for minor immigration violations. Such a strategy provides the government two options: deport those who are not terrorists, and then prosecute others who are. While certainly efficient, using immigration courts and their less formal due process protections afforded noncitizens should trigger greater oversight and vigilance by the federal courts for at least four reasons: First, while the legitimate goal of immigration law enforcement is deportation, Ashcroft's true objective in targeting …

Watching The Watchers: The Growing Privatization Of Criminal Law Enforcement And The Need For Limits On Neighborhood Watch Associations, Sharon Finegan

University of Massachusetts Law Review

On the night of February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman, a member of a neighborhood watch program, was patrolling his community in Sanford, Florida, when he spotted Trayvon Martin, a seventeen-year-old Africa-American high school student, walking through the neighborhood. Zimmerman dialed 911 and indicated that he was following "a real suspicious guy". The police dispatcher requested that Zimmerman discontinue following Martin, but he ignored the request and approached the teenager. In the resulting confrontation, Zimmerman used his legally owned semi-automatic handgun to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin. Martin, who was unarmed, had been returning from a local convenience store. George Zimmerman …

Victory Without Success? – The Guantanamo Litigation, Permanent Preventive Detention, And Resisting Injustice, Jules Lobel

Articles

When the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) brought the first habeas cases challenging the Executive’s right to detain prisoners in a law free zone at Guantanamo in 2002, almost no legal commentator gave the plaintiffs much chance of succeeding. Yet, two years later in 2004, after losing in both the District Court and Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush handed CCR a resounding victory. Four years later, the Supreme Court again ruled in CCR’s favor in 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush, holding that the detainees had a constitutional right to habeas and declaring the Congressional …

Parallel Investigations Between Administrative And Law Enforcement Agencies: A Question Of Civil Liberties, Shiv Narayan Persaud

Journal Publications

No abstract provided.

The Preventive Paradigm And The Perils Of Ad Hoc Balancing, Jules Lobel

Articles

This article addresses the claim that times of crisis require jettisoning legal rules in favor of ad hoc balancing. Part I demonstrates that the coercive preventive measures adopted by the Bush administration in carrying out the War on Terror discarded clear legal rules in favor of ad hoc balancing and relied on suspicions rather than objective evidence. Part II examines the claims of prevention paradigm supporters that ad hoc balancing is necessary in the new post-911 era in order to reach decisions that correctly weigh the values of liberty and peace versus national security. This article argues that discarding the …

Are We Unnecessarily Serving Up Civil Liberties On A Patriot Platter?, Kyle A. Clark

ExpressO

This paper seeks to identify the general cognitive biases and overall measurement errors inherent in recent studies seeking to measure the effects of terrorism. Such biases lead to unprincipled conclusions founded upon incomplete information. These problems are exacerbated by inaccurate measures of the true impact of terrorism on the economy, the human psyche, policy-making and the world community. Such measurement errors severely diminish the probative value of the studies and lead to merely speculative conclusions. The goal of this paper is to shed light on these inaccurate conclusions in the hope that future legislation and practices aimed at curbing terrorism …

Decoupling 'Terrorist' From 'Immigrant': An Enhanced Role For The Federal Courts Post 9/11, Victor C. Romero

Journal Articles

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft has utilized the broad immigration power ceded to him by Congress to ferret out terrorists among noncitizens detained for minor immigration violations. Such a strategy provides the government two options: deport those who are not terrorists, and then prosecute others who are. While certainly efficient, using immigration courts and their less formal due process protections afforded noncitizens should trigger greater oversight and vigilance by the federal courts for at least four reasons: First, while the legitimate goal of immigration law enforcement is deportation, Ashcroft's true objective in targeting …

Preventive Detention: Prisoners, Suspected Terrorists And Permanent Emergency, Jules Lobel

Articles

Central to the United States government’s strategy after the September 11th attacks has been a shift from punishing unlawful conduct to pre-empting possible or potential dangers. This strategy threatens to undermine fundamental principles of both constitutional law and international law which prohibit certain government action based on mere suspicion or perceived threat. The law normally requires that the government wait until a person or nation has committed or is attempting to commit a criminal act before it may employ force in response. The dangers of a policy of preventive detention have been analyzed from a number of perspectives. Historians have …

Transcript For Panel Two: Criminal Law And Dna Science: Balancing Societal Interests And Civil Liberties, American University Law Review

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Underfederalization Of Crime, A. Kimberley Dayton

Faculty Scholarship

This article contends that judicial and academic complaints about the overfederalization of crime largely have matters backwards. The image of a runaway national government increasingly taking away the enforcement of the criminal law from the States is essentially false. The available evidence indicates that the national government's share in the enforcement of criminal law has been actually diminishing for more than the last half century. The national government does have concurrent authority over a greater range of criminal activity now, including much violent street crime. But, contrary to Lopez and the conventional wisdom it embraces, this expanded authority does not …

Preventing A Reign Of Terror: Civil Liberties Implications Of Terrorism Legislation, David B. Kopel, Joseph Olson

David B Kopel

Domestic terrorism is not a reason to abrogate constitutional rights, argues this 101-page paper, which discusses the 1996 omnibus federal terrorism bill, and other terror proposals. Topics include: scope of the terrorism problem; Britain's mistaken response to terror; use of the military in law enforcement; the Internet; militias; wiretapping; the FBI; and federalizing local crime.

Foreword, G. Michael Mccrossin, Editor

Vanderbilt Law Review

One of the primary goals of the American criminal justice system is to protect the civil liberties of accused persons while at the same time ensuring the security of citizens' persons and property. Recently, some people have begun to argue that the pursuit of these dual purposes has resulted in a dangerous imbalance, and that our criminal justice system now focuses far too heavily on the rights of the accused. These people have perceived an alarming upswing in the incidence of violent crime and have attributed that upswing to a breakdown in the legal profession's administration of the criminal law.

The Organized Crime Act (S. 30) Or Its Critics: Which Threatens Civil Liberties, John L. Mcclellan, G. Robert Blakey

Journal Articles

On January 23, 1970, the Senate passed by the overwhelming vote of 73 to 1, S. 30, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1969. During the debate in the Senate, S. 30 was subjected to indiscriminate charges that it would, in the words of the American Civil Liberties Union, "make drastic incursions on civil liberties" and that it ran "counter to the letter and spirit of the Constitution."

Certain newspaper commentators and a prominent mayor have echoed those charges, and recently a report critical of several key titles of S. 30 was published by the Committee on Federal Legislation of …