This is about the freedom to be left alone. Ask yourself, is it okay that you can be stopped on the street and accosted by government agents demanding that you identify yourself to them for no reason? If that’s okay is it all right if we just go ahead and implant RF chips in everyone’s heads at birth? That way the authorities won’t even need to ask… They’ll just know where you are at all times, never a need to ask you for ID again- think about the convenience! You go, Supreme Court! It’s going to take the court’s cooperation to get us to that Orwellian future we’ve all been looking forward to!

It’s about a constitutional watershed and here’s why: Hiibel was, you’ll remember, the drunken cowboy parked alongside a Nevada highway who refused to reveal his identity to a policeman, after being told plainly that the cop was “investigating an investigation.” Actually, the police had received a call describing Hiibel’s truck and location and saying that a couple were apparently having a fight inside. So, yes, the policeman had a reasonable suspicion when he approached Hiibel. But he didn’t share that information with the suspect.

The question for the Supreme Court this month is whether the police could demand Hiibel’s identity, and without more than his refusal, arrest the cowboy for obstructing their work. Lithwick says, in effect, if the police could have frisked Hiibel on reasonable suspicion, which they probably could, then what’s in a name, and why not arrest him for refusing to give it? She also chides the “hysterical” friend-of-the-court briefs on both sides, which see this as an apocalyptic constitutional moment.