Publication Date

2010

Journal

Iowa Law Review Bulletin

Abstract

The article critiques Peter Margulies's analysis of cognitive biases in judicial decision-making within national-security cases, particularly his proposed evidentiary presumption to address these biases. While acknowledging Margulies's contribution to the discussion, the article argues that his characterization of cases and proposed solution may oversimplify the complexities of judicial deference and interventionism. It suggests that the central issue in these cases is not excessive deference or interventionism but rather the government's resistance to transparency and the disclosure of sensitive information. The article advocates for a more nuanced approach, emphasizing managed discovery processes to balance national-security concerns with constitutional rights.

Volume

96

First Page

1

Last Page

12

Publisher

The University of Iowa College of Law

Disciplines

Law | Law and Economics | National Security Law

Download

Share

COinS