MENU

International & National Security Law

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

  • Human Rights & Immigration
  • International Organizations
  • International Tribunals
  • National Security
  • Trade, E-Commerce, & Investment

Projects

2017 National Lawyers Convention

November 16, 2017

The 2017 National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 16 through Saturday, November 18 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. More information will be posted later this summer.

Supreme Court Preview: What Is in Store for October Term 2017?

Co-Sponsored by the Faculty Division and the Practice Groups
Jan Crawford, Samuel Estreicher, Orin S. Kerr September 27, 2017

This event is being live-streamed.

October 2nd will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2017 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving Federal Courts, redistricting, the First Amendment, election law, business law, class actions, international and immigration issues, alien tort statutes, and the Fourth Amendment.

The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Samuel Estreicher, New York University School of Law
  • Prof. Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School
  • Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan, LLP
  • Moderator: Ms. Jan Crawford, CBS News
  • More panelists TBA

Immigration Moratorium Back in the Court

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum
Josh Blackman, Ilya Somin July 20, 2017

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.

.Featuring: 

  • 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

Reauthorization of Section 702

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum
Adam Klein, Kate Martin, Karen J. Lugo July 17, 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. Join us as our experts discuss reauthorization, what it would mean if Congress chose not to act, and what kinds of reforms are under consideration.

.Featuring: 

  • 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

The Constitutional War Powers of the Executive and Legislative Branches - Event Audio/Video

Article I Initiative
Mickey Edwards, Andrew C. McCarthy, Nathan Kaczmarek July 13, 2017

What kind of war power does the Constitution grant the President and Congress? What limitations apply to each branch concerning the power to declare war and the use of military force? Over time, how has the Framers’ understanding been followed and in what ways has it been ignored? Do the founding principles regarding these topics still have application to our modern era? Join us for an insightful discussion with Former Congressman Mickey Edwards and National Review Institute Senior Fellow Andrew C. McCarthy.

This event was held on July 7, 2017, at the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

Featuring:

  • Hon. Mickey Edwards, Former Congressman, Vice President and Program Director, Rodel Fellowships In Public Leadership, Aspen Institute
  • Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute
  • Moderator: Nate Kaczmarek, Deputy Director, Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society

Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC

The Layered Model of Adjudication and Enforcement of Net Neutrality with the FTC, DOJ, and State AGs

Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Teleforum
Roslyn Layton, Alexander Okuliar July 12, 2017

A number of regulatory advocates assert that Title II of the Communications Act, enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, is the only way to protect net neutrality. Research by Roslyn Layton, PhD, who has studied net neutrality in 50 countries, suggests otherwise. Moreover, a layered model using existing antitrust and consumer protection laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, and State Attorneys General may well provide more effective and less costly regulation. Alex Okuliar, formerly an advisor to FTC Commissioner (now Acting Chairman) Ohlhausen, will interview Roslyn Layton about her research on these issues and the layered model of enforcement.

Featuring: 

  • Roslyn Layton, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
  • Moderator: Alex Okuliar, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLPAlexander Okuliar Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

 

Turkey in NATO - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Alan Makovsky, Blaise Misztal July 07, 2017

Turkey’s President Erdogan has secured authoritarian rule through constitutional restructuring. He does not tolerate dissent and has arrested journalists, prosecutors, judges, military officials, police, academics and civil servants. Turkey would arguably not qualify to join NATO today. Turkey is seeking common cause with Russia and Iran. Erdogan has called America’s Kurdish allies in Syria “terrorists” and launched air strikes against them. NATO has never expelled a member state. When are the risks to NATO countries’ security and intelligence compelling enough to consider expelling Turkey? Are other, lesser sanctions an option? What would be the mechanism to accomplish this?

Featuring: 

  • Alan Makovsky, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
  • Blaise Misztal, Director of National Security, Bipartisan Policy Center

Ziglar v. Abbasi Decided - Are Government Officials Liable for Damages? - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
David B. Rivkin Jr. July 07, 2017

Ziglar v. Abbasi is the result of over a decade of remands and appeals. The case was originally filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of incarcerated Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens who were targeted after 9/11 by law enforcement as “terrorism suspects.” The defendants in the case, high level officials in the Bush administration, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller, and low level detention officials, filed a motion to dismiss, which was rejected by the in the District Court.

In 2009, the Supreme Court decided in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that government officials were not liable for discriminatory actions of their subordinates without evidence they directly ordered the actions. Meanwhile, five of the petitioners in Ziglar settled with the government, and the case was remanded to the District Court and amended. In 2010, the District Court granted a new motion of dismissal, but only for the high level officials. This dismissal was reversed by the Second Circuit.

The main question the Supreme Court answered was whether these high-level government officials could be sued for damages under the Bivens precedent. The precedent, created in a 1971 case involving the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, created an implied cause of action for any person whose Fourth Amendment rights are violated by federal officials. On Monday, June 19 the Supreme Court refused to extend the Bivens precedent to the petitioners, reversing the decision by the Second Circuit and remanding the case.

David Rivkin of Baker Hostelter joined us to discuss the opinion and its significance.

Featuring:

  • David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP 

Turkey in NATO

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum
Alan Makovsky, Blaise Misztal July 06, 2017

Turkey’s President Erdogan has secured authoritarian rule through constitutional restructuring. He does not tolerate dissent and has arrested journalists, prosecutors, judges, military officials, police, academics and civil servants. Turkey would arguably not qualify to join NATO today. Turkey is seeking common cause with Russia and Iran. Erdogan has called America’s Kurdish allies in Syria “terrorists” and launched air strikes against them. NATO has never expelled a member state. When are the risks to NATO countries’ security and intelligence compelling enough to consider expelling Turkey? Are other, lesser sanctions an option? What would be the mechanism to accomplish this?

Featuring: 

  • Alan Makovsky, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
  • Blaise Misztal, Director of National Security, Bipartisan Policy Center