A challenge for any democratic republic is to establish modes of governance that can effectively defeat or mitigate national security threats while also preserving freedoms and public accountability. To many, especially during national security crises, courts are expected to act as guardians of liberty and the boundaries of state power. 

This report and associated policy briefs examine the effectiveness of courts at adjudicating complex cases, through analysis of cases involving health care, education, environmental risk regulation, and commercial law.

This policy brief assesses the adoption of US models of judicial activism in post-Communist countries of central and Eastern Europe, and proposes an alternative model in the form of co-equality as a more effective way to reconcile popular sovereignty with individual liberty.

The principle of independence of the judiciary, while fundamental to a society based on the rule of law, is sometimes used to preclude the evaluation of courts. Such an approach is mistaken: judges and courts should be both independent and subject to evaluation.