Justices block lawsuit over foreign intelligence surveillance
February 26th, 2013
12:31 PM ET

Justices block lawsuit over foreign intelligence surveillance

By Bill Mears

The Supreme Court rejected an effort by a group of attorneys, journalists and others to proceed with a lawsuit over the federal government's sweeping electronic monitoring of foreigners suspected of terrorism or spying.

The 5-4 conservative majority on Tuesday concluded that the plaintiffs lacked "standing" or jurisdiction to proceed, without a specific showing they have been monitored. The National Security Agency has in turn refused to disclose monitoring specifics, which detractors call "Catch-22" logic.

Justice Samuel Alito said plaintiffs "cannot demonstrate that the future injury they purportedly fear is certainly impending."

The justices did not address the larger questions of the program's constitutionality, and this ruling will make it harder for future lawsuits to proceed.

At issue: Can these American plaintiffs who deal with overseas clients and co-workers file suit if they reasonably suspect - but cannot know for sure - that the government was reading and hearing their sensitive communications?

The personal liberty versus national security case is one of the biggest the high court is addressing this term.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was revised by Congress in 2008 to give the attorney general and the director of national intelligence greater authority to order "mass acquisition" of electronic traffic from suspected foreign terrorists or spies. The law previously required the government to justify a national security interest before any monitoring of phone calls and e-mails originating in another country. A federal judge had to sign any search warrant.

The larger issue involves the constitutionality of the federal government's electronic monitoring of targeted foreigners. A federal appeals court in New York ruled against the Obama administration, prompting the current appeal.

After such "warrantless wiretapping" was exposed, President George W. Bush and his congressional allies moved to amend the existing law, which supporters say is designed to target only foreigners living outside the United States.

Alito said that there were enough legal safeguards to ensure that any information gathered by the NSA would be used properly in court, and that a judicial FISA panel could review any particular surveillance.

"If the government were to prosecute one of the (plaintiffs') foreign clients using authorized surveillance, the government would be required to make a disclosure," Alito said. He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the harm claimed by the plaintiffs "is not speculative. Indeed it is as likely to take place as are most future events that commonsense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen." He was backed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International told the court that little is known about the FISA Amendments Act, such as who has been targeted, how often it has been used and whether any problems or abuses have occurred.

A key point of contention was whether those amendments would stifle free speech of the work of lawyers, journalists and activists by forcing them to do their jobs less diligently, for fear of being monitored and perhaps prosecuted.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, speaking for the Justice Department, said that to the contrary, if the lawyer "took precautions, it would be because of a belief that (he or she) had to comply with an ethics rule, and the ethics rule would be the cause of (him or her) taking those precautions."

Either way, he said, there was no "concrete application" of the law permitting someone to come into court and make a claim based on "speculation."

The case is Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (11-1025).

soundoff (12 Responses)
  1. Joseph McCarthy

    Now it appears that even the U.S. Supreme Count is on the payroll of the M.I.C. This country appears to be going the way Germany did back in the 1930's!

    February 26, 2013 at 7:14 pm | Reply
    • COMEDIAN KHAN

      Joseph McCarthy, someone should push your head down in a bucket full of crap and tickle you with feather till you eat it all, then Supreme Court judges should block all your lawsuits and pour coffee on you in front of your grand mother.

      February 26, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Reply
      • John Geheran

        Gee COMEDIAN KHAN, that wasn't very nice, especially to someone like Joseph who has the right idea about how corrupt this government really is. Besides, It is already self evident that bribery has become a staple part of our foreign policy these days!

        February 27, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
  2. 1371usmc

    Go figure to bunch of blood thirsty liberal lawyers want to stop a program that is keeping us safe just because something they don't like might happen. And if it did happen how many lives might be saved?

    February 26, 2013 at 3:35 pm | Reply
    • usvet

      keeping us safe huh? right....

      February 26, 2013 at 11:44 pm | Reply
  3. COMEDIAN KHAN

    Supreme Court, someone should put your head on concrete and pound you with an iron rod till every thing
    comes out, then we should all drink Bud on you in front of your mother.

    February 26, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.