National Emergencies Act (NEA) (1976)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
The NEA was enacted to limit presidential emergency powers by requiring declarations of national emergency to be formally proclaimed, published, and subject to congressional oversight and renewal.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before 1976, hundreds of emergency statutes had been invoked without clear limits or sunset provisions. The Act was part of post-Watergate reforms to reassert congressional authority.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (1977)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1707)

2) Why It Was Done
Congress passed IEEPA to give the President authority to regulate commerce and block assets during declared national emergencies originating outside the United States, especially threats involving foreign states or actors.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
IEEPA replaced parts of the Trading with the Enemy Act (1917), which was considered too broad for peacetime use. The National Emergencies Act (1976) provided the framework within which IEEPA operates.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (1978)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
FISA was enacted after revelations of widespread domestic spying (e.g., the Church Committee) to regulate government surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes and establish judicial oversight.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Prior intelligence gathering relied on executive claims of inherent authority. FISA created a statutory framework with judicial checks, aiming to protect Fourth Amendment rights while enabling national security investigations.

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (2001 & 2002)

1) Link to the Text of the Acts

• 2001 AUMF – Pub. L. 107–40
• 2002 AUMF – Pub. L. 107–243

2) Why They Were Done

• 2001 AUMF: Passed after the September 11 attacks, authorizing the President to use force against nations, groups, or persons responsible for 9/11 or who harbored them.
• 2002 AUMF: Authorized force against Iraq to address Saddam Hussein’s regime and alleged weapons of mass destruction.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the President. These AUMFs served as statutory substitutes for formal declarations of war, last used in WWII.

USA PATRIOT Act (2001)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute on Congress.gov

2) Why It Was Done
Passed quickly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the PATRIOT Act expanded law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ powers to investigate and prevent terrorism.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Amended or expanded numerous existing laws, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, 1978) and federal criminal procedure statutes. Raised concerns about conflicts with Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

Homeland Security Act (2002)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (6 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
Passed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Act created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate national efforts against terrorism, improve border security, and streamline emergency response.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before 2002, counterterrorism and homeland security functions were spread across multiple agencies (FBI, INS, Customs, FEMA, Coast Guard). The Act consolidated them into a single Cabinet-level department.

FISA Amendments Act (2008)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (50 U.S.C. §§ 1881a et seq.)

2) Why It Was Done
The Act was passed to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) in response to modern communications technology and post-9/11 counterterrorism needs. It expanded government surveillance powers, particularly for monitoring communications involving foreign targets.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
FISA (1978) required warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for electronic surveillance. The 2008 amendments created broad exceptions, raising major Fourth Amendment concerns about privacy and warrantless searches.

Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA, 2015)

1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (6 U.S.C. §§ 1501–1528)

2) Why It Was Done
The Act was passed to improve the nation’s cybersecurity defenses by encouraging private companies and the federal government to share cyber threat indicators. It was intended to help detect and prevent cyberattacks more quickly.

3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before CISA, there was no comprehensive framework for private-sector cyber threat sharing. The Act raised concerns about Fourth Amendment privacy rights because of the potential for government access to personal data.

Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
President Trump issued a proclamation restricting entry into the U.S. from several predominantly Muslim countries. Opponents argued it violated the Establishment Clause by targeting Muslims. The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban 5–4, ruling it was within the President’s authority over immigration and national security. In doing so, the Court explicitly disavowed Korematsu v. United States (1944) as wrongly decided.