Supreme Court turns down ACLU bid to kill NSA warrantless wiretapping

The US Supreme Court has dismissed Clapper v. Amnesty International, which sought to overturn the secret, mass surveillance of the Internet by the NSA. EFF has its own lawsuit, which is still proceeding:

The court didn’t address the constitutionality of the FAA itself, but instead ruled that the plaintiffs—a group of lawyers, journalists, and human rights advocates who regularly communicate with likely "targets" of FAA wiretapping—couldn’t prove the surveillance was "certainly impending," so therefore didn’t have the "standing" necessary to sue. In other words, since the Americans did not have definitive proof that they were being surveilled under the FAA—a fact the government nearly always keeps secret—they cannot challenge the constitutionality of the statute. p> It’s shameful that the courts again have cut off another avenue for accountability regarding the NSA's warrantless and unconstitutional surveillance activities. But as disappointing as the Clapper decision is, the good news is the decision likely won't adversely affect our Jewel v. NSA lawsuit, which we argued in district court in December of 2012. Indeed, the Clapper decision makes the Jewel case one of the last remaining hopes for a court ruling on the legality of the warrantless surveillance of Americans, now conducted for over a decade.

The Ninth Circuit has already ruled that the Jewel plaintiffs have standing under settled law. The court's decision is based on solid ground because we have presented the court with evidence that dragnet warrantless surveillance has already occurred, through testimony and documents from AT&T and NSA whistleblowers. In fact, the court specifically differentiated the two cases in its Jewel opinion: “Jewel has much stronger allegations of concrete and particularized injury than did the plaintiffs in Amnesty International. Whereas they anticipated or projected future government conduct, Jewel’s complaint alleges past incidents of actual government interception of her electronic communications."

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to FISA Amendments Act; EFF's Lawsuit Over NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Remains

12

  1. ‘due to the high likelyhood of communicating with targets’

    *headdesk*

    YOU ARE THE FINAL CHECK AGAINST ABUSES OF LAW YOU SHOULD LOOK AT SOMETHING AND GO ‘HOW IS THIS GOING TO BE ABUSED’ NOT ‘WHO ARE THE PEOPLE BRINGING UP THIS DREK AND HOW CAN WE BE DISMISSIVE OF THEIR CLAIMS’. THANK YOU GOODNIGHT!

    /frustrated mini rant

    1. Normally I wouldn’t condone shouting on the innerwebz, but it’s very warranted this time.

      We’re well and verily fucked.

  2. I guess then it is okay for the NSA to wiretap the Supreme Court Justices and their staff because as long as the individuals do not know that they could be wiretapped or monitored.

    “In other words, since the Americans (Supreme Court Justices/Clerks/Staffers) did not have definitive proof that they were being surveilled under the FAA—a fact the government nearly always keeps secret—they cannot challenge the constitutionality of the statute.”

    If you don’t vote our way, we will release/leak all our evidence into the public and publicly humiliate you.

  3. Was really impressed with the teaming masses of right wing constitutional literalists that showed up to protest. So many gun’s rights and NRA people truly concerned about “liberty”……

    1. You’re being monitored no matter what you do in The Land of the Free, Inc., so carry on… carry on…

  4. So it seems to me here the analogy is that, say, 

    1) a law is passed that says cops can now try any door of any house they come across and if its open they can search it [we have a law that violates privacy, and would not pass constitutional muster]

    2) either no cops actually do this, or we can’t prove that they do this because they are VERY neat when they search houses this way [no body is able to demonstrate direct harm]

    3) some people buy expensive locks, or say, now I really NEED that lock I was using anyway to prove they are harmed by the potential of something that by 2 hasn’t seen any evidence of happening

    Is there really any evidence that the standing doctrine here is much different from that used in every other case? Nobody could demonstrate harm. Open and shut (why do 4 justices disagree?)

    How will the EFF demonstrate harm in a different way than the ACLU tried to?

Comments are closed.