Currently, I have been looking over the case I will soon rule on. It is Associated Press v. United States. As I look into more detail, it seems that the prevalent struggle is between privacy and national security. Our main character here is Edward Snowden. Snowden was a former CIA employee who leaked information pertaining to the new government surveillance program entitled PRISM. Ironically enough, there was another information leak prior to the one brought on by Snowden. The Washington Post also received leaked information that contained various records from people at The Associated Press. It seems to me as thought this type of action is going to repeat itself.
This is a very big case. The ideas of privacy and nation security are quite lofty. It is up to me and my fellow eight supreme court justices to decide if the government’s claim of defense of national security is enough to punish Snowden and the others who leaked secretive government information.
It is my goal to scrutinize this case very carefully. However, I have a very lofty bar set– the U.S. Constitution. I like to hold each of my cases to this standard, to ensure that the supreme law of the land is being upheld. It is typically claimed that I like to stick to republican party lines, but I would never let this identity overshadow my duty of upholding the Constitution. I see the importance in this case of promoting the first amendment right of freedom of speech and the press, yet this will not damper my need to uphold the letter of the law.