The National Security Case for Judicial Review | Lawfare

Check out this new Lawfare article, “The National Security Case for Judicial Review,” which makes a compelling case that judicial scrutiny of executive national security claims strengthens both democratic legitimacy and national defense. The authors contend that courts possess the competence to evaluate sensitive security matters and that appropriate judicial review prevents abuse of power while improving decision-making and public trust.

Appropriate judicial review strengthens national security, and there are risks inherent in undue deference… If courts decline to review whether executive assertions are supported by facts and are lawful, they enable violations of the law… Anticipation of judicial review promotes discipline in process and discernment within the executive branch, leading to more informed decisions, better resource allocation, and sustained public support—all of which are vital to national security.

They explain that unchecked deference also risks eroding constitutional safeguards and undermining domestic and international confidence in U.S. leadership. “Investing in Strategic Influence: A National Security Imperative” (May 2025, Small Wars Journal) similarly argues that military strength alone cannot secure strategic success; the United States must also shape global perceptions and legitimacy through non-kinetic instruments of power.

Read together, these articles reveal that hard power is not the only determinant of national security outcomes. Legitimacy, credibility, and institutional accountability remain a core dimension of strategic strength in modern competition. Judicial oversight and strategic influence are essential mechanisms that build trust at home and among partners.

The post The National Security Case for Judicial Review | Lawfare appeared first on Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University.