| The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and subsequent actions by the Bush administration, have reminded us that the federal courts often are required to resolve questions of individual rights in lieu of foreign policy or national security concerns. Unfortunately, the majority of U.S. foreign policy studies focus on interactions between the executive and legislative branches of government during the conduct of foreign affairs. Consequently, in an effort to concentrate on the President, Congress, or agencies such as the CIA or Department of State, these examinations neglect the roles played by the judiciary. By focusing on judicial involvement in the development of U.S. foreign policy the chapters of this dissertation therefore contribute to several literatures. First, the analyses augment studies of U.S. foreign policy by focusing on a historically neglected branch. Second, the examinations contribute to the literature on judicial politics by comparing structural differences among the three levels of the federal court system. Throughout the entire project, two main themes emerge: what roles have the federal courts assumed in resolving foreign policy disputes, and does the structure of the judicial system exert a substantial influence on judicial decision making in foreign policy cases? Using a unique dataset of cases from 1946--2000, I discover several conclusions. First, the answer about whether judges are defenders of civil liberties or champions of national security is resolved in favor of the latter. Based on separate empirical models one can reasonably conclude that federal judges are champions of national security; though liberal judges are more likely to support civil liberties than conservatives. Second, the empirical results demonstrate that the hierarchical structure of the federal judiciary exerts a significant constraint upon the Courts of Appeals, but not upon the District Courts. Finally, a qualitative analysis of post-September 11th cases indicates these results are consistent in the contemporary judicial system, although more analyses are needed to confirm this conclusion. |
