INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF STATES OF EXCEPTION

The Supreme Court of the United States will soon hear challenges to the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syria and Haiti, cases that sit squarely within ISSE’s core concern: the use of exceptional or emergency-adjacent authority without meaningful procedural constraint. At issue is whether the Department of Homeland Security can rely on broad assertions of “national interest,” or must conduct a genuine, evidence-based assessment of country conditions as required by statute. Lower courts have already identified procedural failures and, in some instances, evidence of predetermined outcomes. With more than one million TPS holders affected, the stakes extend far beyond immigration policy. The Court’s decision will help determine whether executive power, when operating in the space between routine governance and exception, remains subject to enforceable legal limits.

A surge in executive “emergency” actions is reshaping the balance of power in the United States. This analysis finds that the scale, pace, and scope of recent emergency orders, particularly outside traditional frameworks like International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), are historically unprecedented and increasingly directed toward domestic policy goals. The use of declarations such as the “National Energy Emergency” illustrates how emergency authorities can be leveraged to bypass Congress and statutory constraints. With legislative checks weakened since INS v. Chadha and judicial review often limited, meaningful oversight is increasingly difficult. The piece from Lawfare argues that courts may need to adopt more searching review to prevent the normalization, and weaponization, of emergency powers.

Estonia will conduct ILVES 2026, a nationwide crisis-management exercise from June 8–12 involving more than 130 public, private, and civil society organizations. The exercise is designed to test coordination, decision-making, and the continuity of essential services during complex crisis scenarios, including hostile state influence, public disorder, and infrastructure disruptions. Activities will include simulations of evacuations, emergency response, and information-sharing processes. The exercise is part of Estonia’s regular preparedness framework under its Emergency Act and does not indicate an imminent threat. Overall, ILVES 2026 aims to strengthen national resilience through coordinated, whole-of-society crisis response.

This Miller Center conference examines the history, expansion, and constitutional risks of presidential emergency powers in the United States. Convened after the Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision rejecting President Trump’s use of emergency authority to regulate tariffs, the discussion brings together leading scholars and practitioners to assess how presidents, Congress, and the courts have shaped the emergency-powers framework. Panelists trace the issue from the founding era through FDR, Watergate, 9/11, and the modern presidency. For ISSE, the event is important because it shows how exceptional powers can become routine tools of governance when Congress is weak, courts are cautious, and presidents face incentives to act unilaterally. The result is a constitutional system under strain, where emergency authority risks replacing democratic deliberation.

ISSE team members spoke at Centre for Statecraft & National Security on April 8, 2026, in a panel examining the global rise of “states of exception.” The discussion explored how emergency powers and prolonged security measures are increasingly shaping democratic governance across regions. Drawing on comparative case studies, speakers assessed when such powers are necessary, when they become corrosive, and what constraints are required to preserve democratic legitimacy. The event also highlighted ISSE’s emerging research agenda and its focus on gaps in current policy thinking around emergency governance.

What are the conditions for effective crisis management in multi-level systems characterized by overlapping territorial and ethnic structures? To answer this question, this article considers evidence from Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). BiH’s fragmented governance often hinders effective vertical and horizontal coordination across government levels. Drawing on two case studies—the 2014 floods (an internal crisis) and the COVID-19 pandemic (an external crisis)—the analysis reveals how substate entities’ extensive exclusive powers promote unilateral decision-making and limit the ability to address crises collectively. The evidence shows that internal crises often exacerbate fragmentation, while external crises may initially foster coordination before political and structural limitations reassert dominance. Further, while community activism assists in addressing coordination gaps, it cannot substitute for gaps in governance.

This book examines how Gustav Radbruch, H. L. A. Hart, and Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde each addressed the question of the end of law, its function, and its normative foundation within the context of the modern legal and political order. Through a politico-theological reading, it highlights the tension between legal validity and moral legitimacy, as well as the extent to which law can maintain public order without compromising its own claim to justice.

The analysis of Radbruch, Hart, and Böckenförde sheds light on how valid law can become unjust, demanding actions that may conflict with individual judgment or morality. It raises questions about natural law, the relationship between morality and law, and law’s ultimate purpose, suggesting that law and politics represent, at best, a relative good. It addresses the broader crisis of legal authority and state sovereignty, the expanding reach of state power, and whether law should instruct, command, or ultimately point beyond itself.

The End of Law is of interest to scholars in legal theory, political theology, and the philosophy of law.

The article aims to analyze the meaning and place of states of emergency as a special legal regime in the legislation of the Visegrad Group countries. The main research question is about the role of states of emergency in the political system of the Visegrad Group countries, the practice of their application in the face of special threats, and the consequences of states of emergency for citizens and state authorities. Are states of emergency an effective tool for dealing with special threats or an instrument that the government uses to strengthen its power? The main thesis is that political practice has revealed the lack of a coherent model of the Visegrad Group countries’ strategy for overcoming the emergency and using the instrument of struggle in the form of states of emergency. In the case of Hungary, it can be seen that the state of emergency has become an instrument used by the government to strengthen its power. The methods used are the comparative method to compare the practice of application and the regulations in force in the Visegrad Group countries regarding the category of states of emergency.

A Human Rights Watch report finds that some Salvadorans deported from the United States within the last year have been detained in El Salvador without access to lawyers, families, or courts, raising concerns about enforced disappearance. The report links these cases to El Salvador’s ongoing state of emergency, which has suspended key due process protections. Many families report being unable to determine the whereabouts or legal status of detained relatives. Authorities in both countries have provided limited transparency, while judicial and oversight mechanisms have offered little recourse. The findings highlight the risks that arise when deportation policies intersect with emergency governance frameworks.

This Carnegie Endowment report analyzes democratic backsliding in the United States under President Donald Trump in comparative perspective. It finds that recent developments align with patterns of executive aggrandizement seen in countries such as Hungary, India, and Türkiye, particularly through efforts to consolidate power within the executive, weaken institutional checks, and constrain civil society. At the same time, the U.S. case is distinguished by the speed and breadth of these efforts, as well as a focus on intra-executive control and indirect pressure on institutions. While U.S. democratic institutions remain more resilient than many global counterparts, the report concludes that the pace and scope of recent changes present a significant test for American democracy.

In 2025, President Donald Trump expanded his own powers through unprecedented interpretations of congressional statutes and Article II of the US Constitution. Ensuing waves of litigation and a record number of emergency-relief applications by the administration to the US Supreme Court placed extraordinary pressure on the federal judiciary. Although US district judges have delayed or halted a range of significant administrative actions, this article’s overview of Trump 47 in court highlights three different scholarly approaches that doubt that the US Supreme Court alone can or ultimately will reverse the administration’s agenda. First, the Roberts Court’s emergency docket decisions thus far comport with recent polarization trends in presidential-power cases. Second, the US Supreme Court lacks institutional capacity and consistent jurisprudence to challenge each area of alleged presidential overreach. Third, the administration’s use of broad authorities previously delegated by Congress serves as a reminder that constitutional interpretation and executive-branch powers are rooted in the broader political system. Congress cannot easily retract granted authority but curtailing presidential unilateralism requires more than litigation.

The proclamation of a state of emergency, whether triggered by armed conflict, terrorist threats, natural disasters, or global pandemics, constitutes a critical test for the resilience of democratic institutions and the protection of fundamental human rights. This paper explores the complex interplay between national security imperatives and the safeguarding of civil liberties during states of exception. Building on a multidisciplinary framework that integrates international human rights law, constitutional theory, and security studies, the analysis examines both normative constraints and empirical practices associated with the temporary suspension or limitation of rights.

The study focuses on the legal mechanisms and justifications invoked by states to derogate from certain obligations under international treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also addresses the principle of proportionality, the requirement of legality, and the obligation of non-discrimination in the implementation of emergency measures. Special attention is paid to the role of constitutional courts and supranational bodies in reviewing the legitimacy and necessity of such restrictions.

Through a comparative analysis of recent case studies—including the COVID-19 pandemic response—this research highlights the risk of normalization of emergency powers and the erosion of democratic oversight. The paper argues for a strengthened normative framework that ensures a fair balance between protecting national security and preserving individual freedoms, emphasizing the importance of legal predictability, transparency, and accountability in emergency governance.

The US/Israel–Iran war is already reshaping governance across the Middle East, not only through battlefield outcomes but through the expanded use of emergency powers. This analysis by ISSE Senior Fellow Paul Shaya examines how Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon are leveraging crisis conditions to enact political and institutional changes that extend beyond immediate security needs. In Israel, wartime procedures have enabled the passage of controversial legislation under reduced scrutiny, raising concerns about democratic oversight. Jordan has used the conflict to tighten restrictions on speech, media, and public assembly, reinforcing existing limits on civic space. Lebanon, by contrast, has invoked extraordinary measures to challenge Hizballah’s parallel authority and reassert state sovereignty. Together, these cases illustrate a broader pattern central to ISSE’s work: emergencies can create openings for durable shifts in governance that may outlast the crises that justified them.

Hungary’s upcoming election offers more than a test of electoral competition, it provides a vantage point for assessing a system shaped over time through the sustained integration of emergency powers. Under Viktor Orbán, successive crises including migration, COVID-19, and the aftermath of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, have enabled the expansion and normalization of executive authority. This article adopts the concept of “exceptionality,” developed in recent scholarship by Przemyslaw Tacik and Gian-Giacomo Fusco, to describe how emergency-derived powers persist beyond formal declarations and become embedded in ordinary governance. Drawing on Kim Lane Scheppele’s analysis in the Journal of Democracy, it situates Hungary’s electoral dynamics within a broader restructuring of the political and legal environment. Elections continue, but the conditions under which they occur have been systematically redefined. The coming vote provides a baseline from which to evaluate how such a system operates in practice, and how it may evolve in the period that follows.

This Lawfare U.S.-based analysis compiles a nationwide dataset of more than 300 immigration habeas cases in which federal authorities failed to comply with court orders. While courts generally succeed in securing eventual compliance, the cases reveal recurring patterns, such as delayed releases, unauthorized transfers, and failures to justify detention, that require repeated judicial intervention to enforce legal limits. Situated within a broader framework of sustained emergency authorities and expanded enforcement activity, these dynamics point to structural strain within the system of legal oversight.

Viewed in aggregate, the dataset suggests not a breakdown of legality, but a shift in how it operates in practice. Individuals remain formally protected by law, yet the realization of those protections often depends on administrative action and continued judicial enforcement. This pattern also raises questions about the limits of judicial enforcement itself, and whether repeated, low-consequence noncompliance risks becoming normalized over time. For ISSE, these dynamics highlight how prolonged reliance on emergency frameworks may contribute to the emergence of exception-like practices within routine governance.

A new impeachment filing in the United States places emergency powers at the center of a constitutional dispute over executive authority. Introduced by Congressman John B. Larson, the resolution includes allegations that emergency authorities have been used by the U.S. President to bypass congressional processes and expand executive reach. Section 12 focuses specifically on how these powers are invoked and applied in practice. This article analyzes those claims within the broader framework of U.S. emergency powers law. It considers what sustained reliance on such authorities may mean for institutional balance.

Background: Contemporary constitutionalism, shaped largely in the post-World War II era, was designed primarily for peacetime. As a result, neither constitutional theory nor practice provides clear answers to questions arising when societies and states face extraordinary situations such as armed conflict, hybrid threats, or terrorism — circumstances that pit state survival against the foundational principles of limited government and guaranteed rights.

Purpose: This article aims to examine how constitutionalism transforms under extraordinary circumstances, particularly martial law, and to identify a viable legal pathway for Ukraine's return to ordinary constitutional order following the termination or lifting of the martial law regime.

Methodology: The study employs an axiological approach, treating constitutionalism not as a static construct but as a dynamic system of values, principles, institutions, and procedures. This framework enables analysis of the relative weight of constitutional principles across varying socio-political circumstances, including crisis conditions.

Results: Under extraordinary circumstances, constitutionalism does not give rise to a distinct or parallel constitutional order — its core identity remains intact. What occurs instead is a temporary shift in the relative significance of key principles: public safety, stability, and statehood come to the foreground, while certain human rights are subject to proportionate restrictions and the rule of law is applied with due regard for the exceptional situation. After overcoming the crisis, the need arises to reassess the relative significance of these principles. The article proposes a dedicated transitional legal regime — positioned between martial law and ordinary peacetime regulation, and conceptualized as a specific instance of a state of emergency — to ensure a gradual and effective return to constitutional normalcy.

Conclusion: Constitutionalism retains its identity even under the most extreme conditions, provided that power remains bound by law. The concept of a transitional legal regime offers a practically grounded mechanism for post-war constitutional recovery, with particular relevance for Ukraine's legal and institutional reconstruction after the lifting of martial law.

Two recent White House memoranda responding to the DHS shutdown rely on existing appropriations law to justify paying federal employees despite a lapse in funding. While the directives do not invoke formal emergency powers, they explicitly frame the situation as a national security emergency and use that rationale to support a flexible reading of statutory limits, raising questions under the Antideficiency Act and the core rule that funds must be used only as appropriated. Legally, presidential memoranda can carry the same force as executive orders, placing the focus on interpretation rather than form. The result is a form of constrained executive improvisation that remains within the language of the law while testing its boundaries. From an ISSE perspective, this reflects a broader shift: emergency reasoning migrating into routine administrative practice. Repeated over time, such approaches risk normalizing flexible statutory interpretation as a substitute for legislative resolution.

The New York City Bar Association’s March 2026 report entitled “The Crisis Deepens: Congress Must Act Now to Address Escalating Abuses of Executive Power“ marks a shift from identifying executive overreach to documenting a more systemic pattern of governance beyond meaningful legal constraint. Building on its December 2025 report entitled “The Abuse of Presidential Power and Breach of the Public Trust,” which warned of boundary-testing, this follow-up argues those boundaries are now being operationally redefined. The report highlights the use of coercive, emergency-style practices without formal invocation of emergency powers, reflecting a broader ISSE concern with embedded exceptionalism. At the same time, weakening judicial enforcement and limited congressional response risk enabling further expansion. The cumulative effect represents a transformation in how law functions in practice. What emerges is a pattern of normalized exceptionalization, where the line between ordinary governance and emergency rule becomes increasingly indistinct.

The large-scale deportation of non-citizens has become a preeminent policy issue. Unfortunately, executive curtailment of immigrant communities’ liberty is not without historical parallels. During World War II, federal officials sent individuals of Japanese descent to internment camps through a series of executive orders and military proclamations. Although attorneys in the Department of Justice believed aspects of these actions were unconstitutional at the time, the administration prevailed at the nation’s highest court. Can recognition of this past wrong aid challenges to contemporary immigration enforcement regimes? How do our courts formally account for the most egregious jurisprudential errors of the past, and endeavor to avoid repeating them? This Article examines the ways in which courts have discussed Korematsu v. United States in the context of immigration arrests and detention. It also provides a comprehensive review of substantive citations to Korematsu since it was overturned in Trump v. Hawaii. The abrogation of Korematsu buttresses the decision’s utility as a negative precedent, and I endeavor to ground the relevance of overturned precedent within normative theories of constitutional interpretation. Through this analysis, I highlight significant similarities between the internment of Japanese Americans and the rhetoric surrounding immigration policy today. In this context, judicial condemnation of Korematsu underscores certain due process requirements for individualized hearings and suggests the need for greater scrutiny of the executive’s emergency powers.