Today’s Supreme Court decision revolved around “standing” (whether anyone was hurt by the law) but it also raises broader issues along the lines that we discussed in class. Under what circumstances should the government be permitted to eavesdrop on Americans’ telephone calls without a warrant to do so?
Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Surveillance Law
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — In a 5-to-4 decision that broke along ideological lines, the Supreme Court on Tuesday turned back a challenge to a federal law that authorized intercepting international communications involving Americans.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that the journalists, lawyers and human rights advocates who challenged the constitutionality of the law could not show they had been harmed by it and so lacked standing to sue. Their fear that they would be subject to surveillance in the future was too speculative to establish standing, he wrote.
Justice Alito also rejected arguments based on the steps the plaintiffs had taken to escape surveillance, including traveling to meet sources and clients in person rather than talking to them over the phone. “They cannot manufacture standing by incurring costs in anticipation of non-imminent harms,” he wrote of the plaintiffs.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion.
In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that the harm claimed by the plaintiffs was not speculative. “Indeed,” he wrote, “it is as likely to take place as are most future events that common-sense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined his dissenting opinion.
The decision, Clapper v. Amnesty International, No. 11-1025, probably means the Supreme Court will never rule on the constitutionality of the law, a 2008 measure that broadened the government’s power to eavesdrop on international communications. The law, an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was passed after the 2005 disclosure of the Bush administration’s secret program to wiretap international communications of people inside the United States without obtaining court warrants. The electronic spying, intended to help pursue terrorists, began after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The 2008 law was challenged by Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups and individuals, including journalists and lawyers who represent prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The plaintiffs said the law violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to intercept their international telephone calls and e-mails.
In 2011, a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ruled for the plaintiffs on the threshold question of whether they had standing.
Judge Gerard E. Lynch, writing for the court, said the plaintiffs had shown that they had a reasonable fear that their communications would be monitored and had taken “costly measures to avoid being monitored.”
The full Second Circuit declined to rehear the panel’s ruling by a 6-to-6 vote.
So this is the first of what I expect to be several posts regarding sequestration, the automatic budget cuts that will take effect next Friday unless Congress and the President take action to avert them. Many say that the budget cuts will hurt the economy, and most agree that some important services will be cut if the sequestration goes through. Others say that these budget cuts are a necessary to reduce the size of the federal government. If sequestration goes through, who is to blame? Or is sequestration a good thing?
Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid’s speech, from last week, regarding Chuck Hagel’s nomination for secretary of state and the filibuster. He made these remarks after the vote to invoke cloture did not pass. What is his argument for ending the filibuster? Do you agree or disagree?
Here’s a report from the BBC on the “drone wars” carried out by the Bush and Obama administrations and the content of a leaked memo in which the Justice Department provides a legal argument backing drone strikes against Americans. Is this, in your view, a proper use of presidential power? Under what circumstances, if any, are such killings justified? And what, in your opinion, does the word “imminent” mean?