다들 뉴스 보셨으리라 생각합니다. 

http://news.donga.com/home/3/all/20170210/82802885/1

전 개인적으로 이번 판결문에서 1965년 판례를 인용한 부분이 참 멋지더라구요. 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

(“‘[N]ational defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965) (“[S]imply because a statute deals with foreign relations [does not mean that] it can grant the Executive totally unrestricted freedom of choice.”).

위키 찾아보니 원문은 이렇게 나오네요. 

This concept of "national defense" cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term "national defense" is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this Nation apart. For almost two centuries, our country has taken singular pride in the democratic ideals enshrined in its Constitution, and the most cherished of those ideals have found expression in the First Amendment. It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties — the freedom of association — which make the defense of our nation worthwhile.

"국방이라고 하는 것은 헌법이 보장하는 민주적 가치와 이상을 수호하는 것이 그 존재 이유 중의 하나인데, 국방 (= 안보, anti-terrorism) 이라는 이름으로 자유를 제한하는 것은 그 자체가 모순이다" 라고 간략히 번역할 수 있을 것 같습니다.