When Liberty and Security Collide: Foreign Policy Litigation and the Federal Judiciary.

In the wake of the September 11th attacks, questions regarding the relationship of civil liberties to foreign affairs have received renewed salience within our society. This paper reviews historical patterns of decision-making in the U.S. Supreme Court and the courts of appeals when confronted with questions of individual rights versus the government's ability to engage in foreign relations. Using an original dataset of federal cases from 1946 to 2000, this Article examines the influence of competing preferences and constraints (i.e., individual rights versus security) on judicial behavior. The empirical results indicate that traditional notions of ideology and preferences over security concerns significantly affect the federal judicial system. However; examinations of individual court levels reveal that the lower courts respond more to security concerns, whereas the Supreme Court is influenced solely by ideological proclivities. Scholars of the judiciary who do not account for these additional dimensions may not adequately capture the complete decision-making processes across the judicial system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]