Ever since September 11, Americans have struggled to reconcile a stepped-up fight against terrorism with our proud heritage of Constitutional liberties. In nearly seven years, the courts have often—but not always—been deprived of the authority and independence they need to protect our constitutional liberties and hold the government accountable.

A new Justice at Stake background paper takes stock of recent legislation and court decisions that have revitalized the debate over the role of our courts in this long-term struggle. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a "state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

The report recaps two court decisions, including the heavily publicized U.S. Supreme Court case Boumediene v. Bush, and five pieces of legislation in Congress that affect the role of federal courts in the fight against terrorists. The broad-ranging legislation would alter court powers in such areas as detainees’ rights, electronic eavesdropping, national security letters, regulating use of the state secrets privilege to terminate civil lawsuits, and protection of the writ of habeas corpus.

This helpful summary also includes links to recent papers by the Brennan Center for Justice, The Constitution Project and Human Rights First.

To see the full report, click here. You can also download Justice at Stake’s 2006 report, Courting Danger: How the War on Terror Has Sapped the Power of Our Courts to Protect Our Constitutional Liberties.