Foreign Policy

Immigration Moratorium Back in the Court

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum Thursday, July 20, 04:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call

Eighteen days after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and stay applications were granted in part, on July 14, Judge Watson of the District Court of Hawaii ruled that grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and other relatives of people could not be prevented from entering the country as they qualified as persons with a “bona fide relationship” under the Supreme Court ruling.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld parts of the District Court order. Ilya Somin and Josh Blackman will join us again to discuss the latest development in the litigation of Executive Order 13780.

  • Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston
  • Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Reauthorization of Section 702 - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Adam T. Klein, Kate Martin, Karen J. Lugo July 19, 2017

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is up for reauthorization in 2017. An earlier version of the program was instituted after 9/11 by President George W. Bush. In 2007, Congress adopted the Protect America Act and one year later passed the FISA Amendments Act, which included Section 702. Section 702 allows the government to target for surveillance non-U.S. citizens “reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.” The authorization does not extend to non-citizens outside the country to gain information on citizens or permanent residents believed to be residing in the United States.

While proponents of the law argue it is necessary for national security, critics claim that U.S. citizens are too often incidentally swept into surveillance due to the nature of the “targeting procedures” employed by intelligence agencies, and therefore reforms are needed to protect their privacy. Our experts discussed reauthorization, what it would mean if Congress chose not to act, and what kinds of reforms are under consideration.


  • Adam Klein, Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
  • Kate Martin, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress 
  • Moderator: Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project

Immigration Moratorium in the Supreme Court - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Josh Blackman, David B. Rivkin Jr., Ilya Somin June 27, 2017

On Monday, June 26, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and stay applications were granted in part. The case is based on the January 21 Executive Order No. 13780, “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” The order suspended immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of seven majority Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. It also suspended refugee admission into the United States for 120 days, and barred entry of Syrian refugees until further notice. The stated order’s purpose was to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.”

The Washington State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the order in District Court citing harm to Seattle residents. Judge James Robart in the Western District of Washington issued a restraining order on February 3 halting President Trump’s executive order nationwide. The Department of Justice appealed the restraining order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the Justice Department’s appeal for an emergency stay.

Three International & National Security Law experts joined us for a great discussion on what the Supreme Court’s actions mean for the current application of the EO and a preview of the case before the Court. 


  • Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston
  • David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

National Intelligence Reform - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Benjamin Powell, David R. Shedd, Matthew R.A. Heiman June 14, 2017

During the presidential campaign, there were calls for changes to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), a federal agency created in response to the events of 9/11 to ensure that the seventeen organizations that make up the intelligence community act in a coordinated fashion. Following President Trump’s inauguration, former Senator Dan Coats was appointed as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). There has also been significant media coverage around the relationship between the intelligence community and the President. During this Teleforum, we were joined by intelligence experts to discuss the relationship between the President and the intelligence community, whether the ODNI is in need of reform, and the top priorities of DNI Coats. 


  • Benjamin Powell, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • David Shedd, Advisory Board Member, Beacon Global Strategies LLC
  • Moderator: Matthew R. A. Heiman, Vice President, Corporate Secretary & Associate General Counsel, Johnson Controls

Foreign Government Partnerships - Podcast

International & National Security Law Podcast
Ryan C. Crocker, William K Lietzau, Salli A. Swartz, Adam R. Pearlman March 15, 2017

Historically, protecting national security meant protecting one’s own citizens and sovereign territory from the threats or opposing interests of other nation-states. The concept has broadened, however, as transnational terrorists act with unprecedented scale and range: the threats they pose are of a magnitude previously only possible for nation-states, and they act indiscriminately among the several countries they feel justified in attacking. The United States’ interest in defeating these actors, then, is one that is shared by many other countries that are not necessarily our allies in a larger sense.

In this the final episode of our three-part Security Partnership Series, we discussed the benefits and limits of partnerships with foreign government agencies for counterterrorism purposes. What conditions form the basis of a productive partnership?  How might such partnerships compromise our operations? How do we decide how much information to share?  Does partnering with a foreign country’s intelligence agency limit our own independent intelligence gathering capabilities?  Perhaps most controversially – what limits can or should be imposed on the methods used to collect the counterterrorism intelligence to be shared? Of the foreign governments that have publicly complained about the United States’ use of certain signals intelligence capabilities, do their intelligence agencies nevertheless desire the information collected? Likewise, although the United States has banned certain interrogation methods domestically, might our intelligence agencies nevertheless want to obtain human intelligence information gathered by foreign agencies using those or other similar methods?


  • Amb. Ryan C. Crocker , Dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University
  • William K Lietzau, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, PAE 
  • Salli A. Swartz, Partner, Artus Wise Partners 
  • Moderator: Adam Pearlman, Special Advisor to the International and National Security Law Practice Group