In Grutter v. Bollinger, law student amici provided significant support for the University of Michigan’s use of race as a factor in law school admissions. Although Grutter did not specifically refer to any of the briefs submitted by law students, the Court’s reliance on diversity interests echoed the students’ emphasis on the educational benefits of a diverse classroom and the instrumental benefits of a diverse legal profession. On the whole, the Court’s analysis in Grutter broke relatively little new ground, since it closely followed Justice Powell’s endorsement of diversity as a compelling interest in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke twenty-five years earlier.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (the “Act”) effected one of the most significant changes since 1947 in the organization of the intelligence community. Title III of the Act reorganized the entire national security clearance system, although the subject received practically no attention in public discussion during the 9/11 Commission hearings. Because this change was not fully explored in either the House or Senate hearings or during floor debate, Title III includes contradictory provisions concerning the assignment of responsibilities for security clearance policies and procedures.
In comparison with other subjects currently taught at law schools in this country, national security law is relatively new. Traditionally, issues involving the constitutional separation of powers among the respective branches of government, including war powers, were covered within the context of an offering on basic constitutional law. If there were courses that touched on specific legal issues involving national security, they tended to be occasional seminars teaching military justice. These focused almost exclusively on the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the separate criminal legal system that it establishes for men and women in uniform. One such course, first offered at the University of North Carolina Law School almost 50 years ago and later at Duke University Law School, was taught by Robinson O. Everett, then a young faculty member at Duke.
Reviewing Terrorism, Freedom, and Security: Winning Without War, by Philip B. Heymann
On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, shortly after Air Force One touched down at Offutt Air Force Base, President Bush began a teleconference with senior national security officials by proclaiming, “We’re at war.” The war, the President elaborated, would be “global in nature.” During a meeting of the National Security Council the next day, the principals labored to flesh out the parameters of the conflict. In particular, they discussed a proposal to frame America’s objective not merely as the destruction of al Qaeda but as the “‘elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life,’ an aim that would include pursuing other international terrorist organizations in the Middle East.”