SCOTUS rejects challenge to surveillance law
Civil liberties advocates condemn the Supreme Court's rejection of claims by activists, journalists, attorneys
Topics: Warrantless Wiretapping, SCOTUS, clapper, fisa amendments act, amnesty, Civil Liberties, Privacy, Supreme Court, Technology News, News
The Supreme Court has rejected a legal challenge from civil liberties advocates and journalists over the government’s sprawling surveillance dragnet codified in 2008 legislation. The case, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, challenged the 2008 federal law that authorized the government’s interception of international communications involving Americans.
The justices voted 5-4 that the plaintiffs, including journalist Chris Hedges and Amnesty International, lacked standing in the case — arguing, essentially, that concerns about a legal framework that might allow for future surveillance were insufficient evidence of harm caused by the law. “They cannot manufacture standing by incurring costs in anticipation of non-imminent harms,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority decision.
The plaintiffs had sought a First Amendment challenge against the FISA Amendments Act – a law that retroactively legalized the government’s warrantless wiretapping program, which had “begun in secret and without congressional authorization under the Bush administration,” as HuffPo’s Matt Sledge noted. The law permitted the National Security Agency and other agencies to read emails and listen in to calls without a warrant when they are targeting foreign nationals.
Civil liberties groups have been swift to condemn the Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday. The Center for Constitutional Rights released a statement noting:
The Center for Constitutional Rights is disappointed in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision denying journalists, human rights organizations and attorneys the right to challenge an overreaching and possibly unconstitutional surveillance law that targets Americans without probably cause. The Court’s decision, while narrow, puts up unnecessary and technical hurdles to challenging the legality of this controversial program.
While the ACLU’s deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer, who had argued the case before the justices last October, commented, “It’s a disturbing decision. The FISA Amendments Act is a sweeping surveillance statute with far-reaching implications for Americans’ privacy. This ruling insulates the statute from meaningful judicial review and leaves Americans’ privacy rights to the mercy of the political branches.”
Natasha Lennard is an assistant news editor at Salon, covering non-electoral politics, general news and rabble-rousing. Follow her on Twitter @natashalennard, email nlennard@salon.com. More Natasha Lennard.




The 7 Worst Human Rights Abuses Committed By The New Xbox
What Do Dogs Think About The Tumblr Sale?
The Console War Isn't About Gamers Anymore
12 Good And Bad Deals That Have Cost Yahoo $10 Billion
Why Your Dinner Doesn't Taste As Good As It Looked Online
Dodgy data: the iceberg to science’s Titanic
BYOD is for amateurs. Try bring-your-own-laboratory
Adios, Dora: Netflix is starting to take Viacom shows offline
Facebook sheds some light on what it can get out of Parse
Apple ebook antitrust trial set for 9-12 days in early June

Comments
2 Comments