The Washington Post

Should courts defer to the government in time of war?

Many people argue that the courts should defer to the government in time of war, because otherwise national security might be in dire peril. If the government claims that it needs to restrict individual constitutional rights or go beyond the usual bounds of separation of powers in order to defeat the enemy, perhaps judges should not scrutinize its claims too closely. After all, they are not experts on military strategy, and usually don’t have access to as much intelligence as the president and his subordinates do.

A major flaw in this argument for judicial deference in wartime is that the government’s claims about national security interests often aren’t trustworthy. As South Texas law professor Josh Blackman points out, the federal government has a long record of lying to the courts and Congress in wartime, exaggerating the extent to which infringements on the Constitution really are needed to promote national security. He gives several examples, some of them well-known, and others less so. Most notoriously, the government deceived the Supreme Court about the supposed security threat posed by Japanese-Americans in order to justify interning them in concentration camps during World War II. Sadly, as Josh notes, bad behavior of this type has continued during the War on Terror.

Given this track record, broad judicial deference during wartime is both dangerous and likely to create perverse incentives. It is dangerous because it could end up authorizing infringements on civil liberties and the separation of powers that aren’t actually necessary. Deference to government deceptions also encourages future deceptions of the same kind. If, on the other hand, courts closely scrutinize the government’s claims in such cases (if necessary, considering confidential intelligence evidence in camera), that would give the government a stronger incentive to stay honest, and reduce the incidence of unnecessary violations of civil liberties.

Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and popular political participation. He is the author of "The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain" and "Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter."



Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments

Sign up for email updates from the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

You have signed up for the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

Thank you for signing up
You'll receive e-mail when new stories are published in this series.
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Videos curated for you.
Play Videos
How to make Sean Brock's 'Heritage' cornbread
New limbs for Pakistani soldiers
The signature dish of Charleston, S.C.
Play Videos
Why seasonal allergies make you miserable
John Lewis, 'Marv the Barb' and the politics of barber shops
What you need to know about filming the police
Play Videos
The Post taste tests Pizza Hut's new hot dog pizza
5 tips for using your thermostat
Michael Bolton's cinematic serenade to Detroit
Play Videos
Full disclosure: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1 ghoul
Pandas, from birth to milk to mom
The signature drink of New Orleans
Next Story
Eugene Volokh · February 3, 2014

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.