This chapter examines how the dissonant treatment of Korematsu plays out in still intensely competing jurisprudential views of the court’s role in high profile security and liberty disputes. It describes and critiques the underpinnings for the exceedingly deferential all the laws but one approach rooted in the government’s broad national security and war powers. And it develops the contrasting call to vigilance with roots in the Supreme Court’s seminal embrace of watchful care over fundamental liberties in its Civil War case Ex Parte Milligan. The chapter then offers a jurisprudentially nuanced conception of judicial independence, discussing works by prominent American, British, and Israeli jurists and scholars. The chapter closes by highlighting Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s observation that in recent years courts have made a “modicum of progress” in generating a better balance of security and liberty, while acknowledging Professor Own Fiss’s spotlight on the judicial penchant for backsliding.
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.