Supreme Court to hear arguments on legality of warrantless wiretapping in the USA

A number of civil rights groups including PEN, will be represented by the ACLU in a Supreme Court case on the legality of the US government's program of mass, warrantless surveillance.

The groups went to court in July 2008 to overturn provisions of the FISA Amendments Act that allow the dragnet surveillance of American’s international emails and phone calls, arguing that the expectation of monitoring harms their ability to communicate freely with international clients and colleagues. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have sought to have the suit dismissed on the ground that because the groups cannot show that their communications have been monitored under the secret program, they cannot demonstrate they have been harmed by the program and so lack “standing” to sue. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that logic, ruling that PEN and its co-plaintiffs have a reasonable basis to fear that the government may be monitoring their conversations under the terms of the law, and that the groups should be allowed their day in court.

The Obama administration appealed that decision, and today’s announcement means that the Supreme Court will review the standing question later this year. The ACLU, which is representing PEN and its co-plaintiffs, will argue the case.

“With the FAA up for reauthorization at the end of the year, it is disappointing that we must once again argue the standing question instead of examining the legality of the program itself,” said Peter Godwin, president of PEN American Center. “For us, the important question is whether the system of checks and balances works, so that laws allowing programs that are utterly secret must at least be subject to independent judicial review. We look to the Supreme Court to uphold our right to clarify how the NSA’s surveillance program affects our organization’s sensitive international communications.”

PEN Heading to Supreme Court in Warrantless Surveillance Case

• [ComradeQuestions]

  Sounds more like the Supreme Court is ruling on whether they’re even allowed to sue, not the subject of the prospective suit itself.

• [theflusheddotcom]

  Are they wire tapping my toilet?

  • [PathosBill]

     Does your toilet have wires? Wait, are you the one pooping in the megaphone?

• [Layne]

  Interesting. 
  Anyone in the media actually posing the question to the president regarding yet another instance of a Federal agency blatantly violating a cornerstone of Constitutional rights?  Or is it the usual – his administration pisses in our faces while ‘serious journalists’ like Jann Wenner give him puffball interviews? 

  Some of the tough questions posed by the head of Rolling Stone:
  - What other TV shows or movies or music have you been enjoying?

  - We’ve talked in the past about how you’ve met Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney here in the White House. Now you’ve met Mick Jagger. Tell us a bit about that.

  - Did you know you were going on to sing “Sweet Home Chicago” that night?

  The kid gloves are off!

• [Manuel Smirnoff]

  Don’t count on the government, of which the Supreme Court is, itself, a branch, to vote against the “rights” of the government over those of the people. I hope that this July 4th everyone will re-read the Declaration of Independence, to understand what we won then, and have lost, since.

• [Shinkuhadoken]

  You have a Supreme Court that votes 5-4 in favor of “What would George W Bush want?” I have a feeling this will only cement things for the worse.

  • [aikimoe]

    And yet it’s the Obama administration arguing for “What would George W Bush want?”  They’ve been doing a lot of that the last 3 years or so.