We recommend Jeffrey Rosen's op-ed in today's New York Times on what to expect from the Supreme Court this term as it strives to balance liberty and security.

"Current Supreme Court precedents don't clearly require proportionality between crime and punishment, or between searches and seizures. This may emerge as a central issue as the justices begin to review cases arising out of the Sept. 11 investigation. In the U.S.A. Patriot Act, for example, Congress gave the president new powers to detain aliens and to investigate citizens. If these powers were limited to the investigation of terrorism, they might be viewed as reasonable. But many of these new powers apply to the investigation of all crimes. As a result, they allow the federal government to collect personal data in search of wrongdoing."

"In evaluating the constitutionality of the U.S.A. Patriot Act as well as new technologies of surveillance adopted after Sept. 11, the court will have to determine whether the Constitution requires that the most intrusive searches be reserved for the most serious crimes."

Rosen is fairly pessimistic about the Supreme Court choosing liberty on many issues, but his analysis is a good one.