How courts make decisions during national emergencies has been a key focus of legal scholarship, yet we know comparatively little about how courts respond to national crises in one of their core functionscriminal sentencing. This article addresses this gap by leveraging the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, to examine the punishment of foreign nationals before and after a national emergency. Using difference-in-difference-in-differences estimation, this article finds little evidence that the severity of sentences for non-U.S. citizens changed appreciably nationwide. This article does find, however, considerable evidence of a more local 9/11 effect, whereby the sentencing gap between citizens and noncitizens widened significantly in the New York and Washington, D.C., District Courts following the attacks. Using restricted data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, this article finds suggestive evidence that the differences in sentencing following 9/11 are likely attributable to changes in judges' behavior, rather than policy shifts or changes in prosecutorial decisions.How do courts respond to national security emergencies? Answering this question speaks to fundamental principles about the rule of law in democratic 1 We are indebted to Jeffery Ulmer and the AJS reviewers for their insightful comments.

If the lack of political involvement on the part of low-status individuals seems counter-intuitive, the comparatively greater amount of activity among Americans in the elite classes seems almost as difficult to explain. After all, high-status individuals' time would theoretically be better spent accumulating more wealth or enjoying their leisure (Zullo 2004), rather than participating in a political system from which they already repeat significant benefits. Instead, the affluent vote the most, even though they have the highest opportunity costs. Nonetheless, as one acquires more financial assets, one tends to resort to more passive types of civic participation (Skocpol and Fiorina 1999). Unsurprisingly, when it comes to volunteering in political campaigns, individuals in the lowest income group actually give more time than those in the highest category of wealth, while these latter individuals gave the most money (Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 1999; 433). Despite the vast amount of literature providing evidence of the positive correlation between status and political activity, several scholars have pointed out-and sometimes accurately so-the shortcomings of this argument. As Highton and Wolfinger (2001) note, the vast majority of Americans are neither "rich" nor "poor' but somewhere in between, therefore, it is "misleading to ascertain the relationship between income and turnout by comparing the top and bottom ends of the income distribution (36)." They furthermore cite the error of "leaping from the turnout rates of a chosen