The power of the executive to implement policies of national security and the degree of oversight that can be provided by the courts over these policies has a matter of great controversy, especially in recent times. While the executive in most instances tend to believe that the courts have limited power over the implementation of the policies, the judiciary worries over dramatic consequences that arise ( Glennon, 2016) . For instance, if the executive is left to make policies without a counter-check operation being carried out, individuals’ rights may be undermined. The federal courts play quite a paramount role in national security by simply shaping security policies. The courts inflict an ‘observer effect’ on the executive which makes the executive implement policies that cannot be challenged by the courts. The executive knows well that every policy proposed or implemented will have to be reviewed by the courts ( Wright & Kane, 2016) . The observer effect on the executive by the judiciary inflicts a forcing mechanism on the executive, making it comply with the courts' requirements or requirements of legality. The executive, therefore, has to alter, disclose or improve certain policies to avoid adverse decisions by the courts if the policies are reviewed.
The national security travel ban has been a matter of controversy in recent times, ever since Trump came into power. The policy has stalled for over a year due to delayed and ongoing rulings of the courts ( Wydra et al. 2017) . A report released on the 15 th of January 2018, revealed that courts are intentionally undermining the President's travel ban policy. The waiting over the rulings of the courts over the issue suggests the enormous effect that the courts have on matters of national security. The policy would have been put into effect immediately the president announced it if the courts were considered powerless over the issue.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Glennon, M. J. (2016). National security and double government . Oxford University Press.
Wright, C., & Kane, M. (2016). Law of federal courts . West Academic.
Wydra, E. B., Karanjia, P., Gorod, B. J., Brounell, G., Gans, D. H., Kovner, V., & Brescia, R. H. (2017). Brief of Members of Congress as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Respondents in the Matter Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project before the US Supreme Court.
