Also known as: national defence · national security
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Measures taken by a nation to protect itself against its enemies, encompassing the protection of its collective ideals and values as well as its military establishment.
Northern Manufacturing prepares to publish satellite images showing troop positions near a contested border. The government obtains an injunction blocking release. The court sustains the order because disclosure would create a serious threat to national defense by revealing operational movements.
Nile Shipping seeks to bring engineers from designated countries to repair port facilities. The President issues an order barring their entry on national security grounds. The court applies rational basis review and upholds the order because it states a legitimate purpose tied to protecting national defense infrastructure.
Nimbus Cloud owns apartments near a realigned air base. After the overseas campaign ends, Congress extends rent caps to stabilize housing for returning service members. The court sustains the caps because they remain reasonably related to remedying disruptions affecting national defense readiness.
Noah Nakamura, a lawful permanent resident, faces state prosecution for failing to register under a new state law. Federal officials argue the statute interferes with uniform national defense and foreign relations policy. The court holds the state measure invalid because it conflicts with federal authority over national defense matters.
In 1939 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania adopted an Alien Registration Act requiring every alien eighteen years of age or older, with limited exceptions, to register annually with the Department of Labor and Industry, supply specified information plus any additional details the department might direct, pay a one-dollar annual fee, receive an identification card, carry the card at all times, and exhibit it on demand by any police officer or department agent. One alien and one naturalized citizen filed suit in federal district court against state officials charged with enforcing the statute and sought an injunction against its operation. A three-judge district court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the alien plaintiff and enjoined enforcement of the Act. The case reached the Supreme Court on direct appeal under section 266 of the Judicial Code, with probable jurisdiction noted on March 25, 1940. After the district court decision but before Supreme Court review, Congress on June 28, 1940 enacted a federal Alien Registration Act that requires a single registration of aliens fourteen years of age and older, collects detailed information plus additional matters prescribed by the Commissioner with the Attorney General's approval, mandates fingerprinting of all registrants, and directs that registration records be kept secret and released only to persons or agencies designated by the Commissioner with the Attorney General's approval. The federal statute contains no requirement that aliens carry identification cards for exhibition to police or other officials and punishes only willful failure to register. The Supreme Court therefore examined the Pennsylvania statute in light of the intervening federal legislation.
View caseNorthstar Logistics bids on a large defense procurement. Congress attempts to block the award through a one-house resolution. The court invalidates the resolution because it violates the constitutional requirements for lawmaking even in national defense contexts.
In 1966 Jagdish Rai Chadha, an East Indian born in Kenya who held a British passport, was lawfully admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa that expired on June 30, 1972. In October 1973, the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed Chadha that he had remained longer than permitted and was therefore deportable. Chadha conceded deportability but applied for suspension under section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. On June 25, 1974, an Immigration Judge acting on behalf of the Attorney General suspended Chadha's deportation and adjusted his status to permanent resident after finding that he satisfied the statutory criteria of seven years' continuous presence, good moral character, and extreme hardship. A report of the suspension was transmitted to Congress as required by the Act. On December 16, 1975, the House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving the suspension for Chadha and five other aliens on the ground that they did not meet the statutory requirements, particularly as to hardship. Pursuant to the House resolution, the Immigration Judge reopened the deportation proceedings. Chadha moved to terminate them on constitutional grounds, but the Immigration Judge ruled that he lacked authority to declare the resolution unconstitutional and ordered Chadha deported. Chadha appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which likewise held that it had no authority to pass on the constitutionality of the resolution and dismissed the appeal. Chadha then filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeared and urged the court to hold the House resolution unconstitutional. After inviting briefs from the Senate and House as amici curiae, the Court of Appeals held the resolution unconstitutional because it was a legislative act that failed to satisfy the requirements of Article I, sections 1 and 7, and set aside the deportation order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the consolidated cases to address the constitutional question.
View caseNatalie Norris challenges a local ban on handguns while claiming a need for self-defense near a military installation. The court recognizes an individual right but notes that longstanding prohibitions tied to national defense interests remain presumptively valid.
The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for one-year periods. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. Respondent Dick Heller is a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home. The District Court dismissed respondent's complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNational defense justifies a prior restraint only when the government meets a heavy burden of showing serious harm such as disclosure of troop movements in wartime. Speculative risks are insufficient.
Supporting sources
Courts apply at most rational basis review and defer to the political branches when an order states a national security purpose rationally related to protecting defense interests.
Supporting sources
Congress may impose postwar rent controls when the measures remain reasonably related to remedying wartime disruptions and continuing national defense exigencies.
Supporting sources
…homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations—the asserted state interest in this case— other reasons exist to promote the…