The COVID-19 pandemic has had dire effects on both public health and the economy. In reaction to the virus’s spread, many states have implemented stay‐​at‐​home orders and closures of all “nonessential businesses.” And national lockdowns have been mandated all over Europe.

These lockdowns raise all sorts of important economic questions:

• How much of the coming downturn will be driven by government shutdowns as opposed to the changing consumer and producer behavior we’d expect because of the virus?
• What will be the net consequences of lockdowns for economic welfare?
• What factors determine the optimal length and scope of these more suppressive measures?
• Are there alternatives to lockdowns that could achieve equivalent or higher benefits at lower total cost?

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised many constitutional questions that we’ve never really thought about. Can President Trump order a nationwide shutdown? Can he quarantine the tristate area? Can he force GM to make ventilators or force 3M to make (and not export) masks? What about those state quarantines in Florida and Texas for travelers arriving from New York, or those Rhode Island troopers pulling over cars with New York license plates? For that matter, where do the governors and mayors who are issuing shelter‐​in‐​place orders get the power to do so? Can they really close churches and other peaceful public assemblies? What about gun stores? For that matter, can anyone challenge a determination that their business isn’t “essential” and thus exempt from many of these orders? Don’t all these restrictions violate our most basic constitutional rights to travel, to earn a living, and generally to make choices about how best to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe and free? Please join us for an online forum to discuss these and other constitutional issues attending the coronavirus emergency.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.

The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts.

Schedule: