U.S. District Court Decision-Making in USA PATRIOT Act Cases after September 11

Christopher P. Banks · Steven C. Tauber

9 citations0/0 files storedJustice System Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Judicial and Constitutional Studies American Constitutional Law and Politics Criminal Law and Evidence

Abstract

Our analysis of federal district court decisions in USA PATRIOT Act cases after September 11 shows that while district courts exhibit great deference to the executive during times of war, especially in terrorism threat and immigration cases, they are not inclined to protect civil rights and liberties during times of domestic or international conflict. While judicial ideology does not influence case outcomes, the presence of a civil-libertarian interest group decreases the chance of a deferential decision, and a more conservative Senate and president increases the chance of judicial deference.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

References

2017New York University Law Review 2000Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting 1993Political research quarterly 2002The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited 2003The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited 1997The choices justices make 2003Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America 1992Logit Modeling

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.