Judicious balancing of the competing interests of civil liberties and public safety/security measures is essential to reducing terrorism. Yet, some scholars decry judicial review as an illegitimate and undemocratic exercise in a representative democracy, while others laud judicial review as an essential function to advance peace, public participation in governing and legitimating democracy’s quest to reduce terrorism in regions where terrorist originate. This book seeks to transcend the debate over judicial review by sharing the views of State Supreme Court Chief Justices on what factors they consider essential to consider when balancing the competing interests. It invites the reader to engage a global discourse within the political spaces judges operate; to accept that judicial review offers an alternative to the sword and is material and relevant to reducing terrorism. By focusing on the signals the Chief Justices send hopefully the public response will be to demand of leaders the preservation of human dignity during the global war on terror and beyond.