Appeals Court Says It's Possible To Challenge Warrantless Wiretap Law Without Proving It Was Used On You
from the huge-news dept
Here's some big news. You may recall a few years ago that the courts more or less said that the ACLU had no standing to file a lawsuit over the government's warrantless wiretapping program, because they weren't the people being spied on. Of course, that left people in quite the catch-22 situation. The wiretapping was entirely secret, and no one could sue unless it was known that they were being wiretapped. So how could you possibly question the legality of the program? The only case that was able to move forward was the one where the government accidentally revealed it was wiretapping, but otherwise the wiretapping program has continued. In fact, to deal with this, Congress even passed a law that explicitly stated that warrantless wiretapping was okay (and also granting telcos retroactive immunity for helping out prior to the law being passed).Of course, with the passage of the new law, the FISA Amendments Act, there was a new issue to sue over, and the ACLU and some others brought a new suit, challenging the specific law. The lower court, again, said that the ACLU had no standing, but the 2nd Circuit appeals court has now reversed that ruling and sent it back to the lower court, saying that the ACLU and the others have made a strong case that they should be able to challenge the constitutionality of the law:
plaintiffs have good reason to believe that their communications in particular, will fall within the scope of the broad surveillance that they can assume the government will conduct. The plaintiffs testify that in order to carry out their jobs they must regularly communicate by telephone and e-mail with precisely the sorts of individuals that the government will most likely seek to monitor – i.e., individuals “the U.S. government believes or believed to be associated with terrorist organizations,” “political and human rights activists who oppose governments that are supported economically or militarily by the U.S. government,” and “people located in geographical areas that are a special focus of the U.S. government’s counterterrorism or diplomatic efforts.” The plaintiffs’ assessment that these individuals are likely targets of [FISA Amendments Act] surveillance is reasonable, and the government has not disputed that assertion.As the report linked above notes, it's expected that the US government will do its usual "state secrets!" claim to try to get away from having to actually defend how this law meets the requirements of the 4th Amendment. Hopefully the courts will actually stand up to the government for once on such a claim.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, appeal, warrantless wiretapping
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Haha
Don't hold your breath.
We are Pwned to no end already..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Haha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Haha
Why is your face turning all purple and stuff ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Haha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Haha
I don't know who comprises this magical "leadership" that we are "several years away from," but methinks thou art a bit optimistic.
Let's hope not (but expect it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Haha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Federal attitude: 4th amendment is annoying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't say he didn't warn us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ex post facto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ex post facto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kevin
Why did you phrase it like that? The previous administration put these rules in place and defended them for five or six years. Certainly the rules are being continued by the current administration. A partisan attack which ignores facts from the previous administration only serves to divide, and therefore weaken, the People. All administrations are equally bad at this and these abuses will continue until we stand together and demand transparency.
I apologize if I misunderstood your argument, but it really left a bad taste in my mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]