The concise Epilogue describes the U.S. Supreme Court’s late-2017 vacation of the courts of appeals rulings in the International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump and Hawaii v. Trump cases (determining that the litigated controversy over the president’s January and March 2017 exclusionary executive orders was moot). It incorporates Justice Sotomayor’s dissent and notes that the lower court rulings “may be persuasive and cited as guidance, but not as binding precedent.” It observes therefore that the Korematsu conundrum persists at the heart of these and future liberty and security controversies: careful judicial scrutiny or near unconditional deference, judicial independence or court passivity.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.