MENU

National Security Law

Justice Scalia’s Jurisprudence and National Security - Event Audio/Video

2016 National Lawyers Convention
Bradford R. Clark, Elizabeth Goitein, Adam Klein, Stephen I. Vladeck, Jerry E. Smith November 23, 2016

This panel will consider Justice Scalia's legacy in national security law, revisiting his opinions in major national security cases, including Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush. It will also discuss the influence Justice Scalia's jurisprudence has exerted on national security law more broadly and his views on the role of the courts reviewing national security policy.

This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC.

International & National Security Law: Justice Scalia’s Jurisprudence and National Security
3:15 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Grand Ballroom 

  • Prof. Bradford R. Clark, William Cranch Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
  • Ms. Elizabeth Goitein, Co-Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice
  • Mr. Adam Klein, Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
  • Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
  • Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

$400 Million to Iran: Ransom or Diplomacy?

Short video featuring Jamil N. Jaffer
Jamil N. Jaffer August 25, 2016

Jamil N. Jaffer explains the legal implications of the US State Department's payment of $400 million to Iran in light of US sanctions against the country. Prof. Jaffer also explores further questions: Was the payment "ransom"? Was it legal? 

Mr. Jaffer is an Adjunct Professor and Director of the Homeland and National Security Law Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

Is the FBI Taking a Bite Out of Apple? - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Jamil N. Jaffer May 27, 2016

In the aftermath of the San Bernadino terrorist attack, the Federal Bureau of Investigations sought the assistance of Apple in its investigation. An Apple phone used by one of the terrorists included a function, which the FBI wanted Apple to defeat, that would automatically delete all stored information after ten failed hacking attempts. Defeating the function would have required Apple employees to write code, which Apple contended amounted to compelled speech. Privacy issues were also asserted, but countered, at least in part, by the fact that the user of the phone was deceased, and the phone was actually owned by a local government. After the FBI used other sources to get the information it sought, Apple moved against the FBI to disclose exactly whether and how it had bypassed the delete function. Our experts discussed this interesting matter and next steps.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Assistant Professor of Law, Nebraska College of Law
  • Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Homeland and National Security Law Program, George Mason University School of Law and former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Immigration Restrictions & the Constitution [FedSoc 5]

Transcript from short video featuring John Eastman and Ilya Somin
John C. Eastman, Ilya Somin April 01, 2016

A quick wrap-up of the immigration debate between Professors John Eastman and Ilya Somin from our 2016 National Student Symposium. 

Immigration restrictions keep millions of people stuck in impoverished countries – preventing them from improving their lives by moving somewhere else. However, some restrictions are clearly necessary to protect national security. And many say that our current laws do not go anywhere near far enough, arguing that additional restrictions are needed to prevent wage depression and the overburdening of our already-strained safety net. One way or another, immigration restrictions have an enormous impact on poverty, both domestically and abroad. But are such restrictions constitutional? This debate will address that question, along with the complex policy issues involved with the topic.

  • Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law
  • Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

Immigration Restrictions & the Constitution [FedSoc 5]

Short video featuring John Eastman and Ilya Somin
John C. Eastman, Ilya Somin April 01, 2016

A quick wrap-up of the immigration debate between Professors John Eastman and Ilya Somin from our 2016 National Student Symposium. 

Immigration restrictions keep millions of people stuck in impoverished countries – preventing them from improving their lives by moving somewhere else. However, some restrictions are clearly necessary to protect national security. And many say that our current laws do not go anywhere near far enough, arguing that additional restrictions are needed to prevent wage depression and the overburdening of our already-strained safety net. One way or another, immigration restrictions have an enormous impact on poverty, both domestically and abroad. But are such restrictions constitutional? This debate will address that question, along with the complex policy issues involved with the topic.

  • Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law
  • Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law