Appeals Court Reiterates: ACLU And Others Are Allowed To Sue The Gov't Over Secret Spying

from the moving-on... dept

Fri, Sep 23rd 2011 2:48pm — Mike Masnick

Back in March, an appeals court said that the ACLU and others could challenge the controversial FISA Amendments Act, the highly controversial change to the law that Senator Wyden has been clearly suggesting is being interpreted ridiculously broadly, such that the US government is collecting private data on potentially millions of Americans without oversight or review. The concern was whether or not the ACLU had "standing" to bring the case. That's because no one knows if their private data has been scooped up and used under FISA, because the government isn't revealing it. But if you can't prove you've been harmed by the law, can you sue? The government claimed that since the ACLU had no proof it could not sue. The court disagreed.

Not surprisingly, the US asked the full appeals court (rather than just the three judge panel) to review that ruling, but the court has now rejected that request. Often when a court refuses to rehear a case en banc, there isn't much of a discussion about it -- they just refuse. Yet here, there's an 83 page filing of opinions (pdf) by judges on the court arguing over whether or not the case should have been heard. Incredibly, despite the clear implications of what Senator Wyden has been saying, a bunch of judges say that the FISA Amendments Act doesn't represent a significant change in the law. Thankfully, those judges were outvoted here, and the lawsuit can move forward.

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: government, spying, standing
Companies: aclue

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 2:53pm

Minor correction
I may be mistaken, but I believe the judges were split evenly down the middle, rather than one side "out-voting" the other. Due to the split, the lawsuit was allowed to proceed.

Like I said though, I might be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- blaktron (profile), 23 Sep 2011 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re: Minor correction
  I can only see 1 judges name concuring with the hearing of hearing en banc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 3:36pm
    
    Re: Re: Minor correction
    I'm probably thinking of a different current event.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 23 Sep 2011 @ 3:02pm

Something to think about...
.

Secret laws are a sure sign that you are living under tyranny.

.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:36pm
  
  Re: Something to think about...
  SecrecyKills
  
  Check it out...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 3:03pm

Is it just me...
Is it just me, or they were having a hearing on whether they should have a hearing on whether they should have a hearing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 23 Sep 2011 @ 3:10pm
  
  Re: Is it just me...
  That's what I'm hearing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - GeneralEmergency (profile), 23 Sep 2011 @ 3:11pm
    
    Re: Re: Is it just me...
    +1 for Recursion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 24 Sep 2011 @ 1:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Is it just me...
      Recursive recursion is recursive recursion is recursive...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Higher Jinn, 24 Sep 2011 @ 3:24pm
    
    Re: Re: Is it just me...
    +1 from the Meta-Genie
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 3:52pm

Standing??
It seems to me that fear that my communications may have been intercepted causes emotional damage and therefore I (and anyone else) have standing to sue. The only way for the government to prove I haven't been damaged is to prove they have not spied upon me. To do that, they'd have to reveal the full list of who has been spied upon. And we all know that will never happen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2011 @ 4:34pm

I read somewhere that 80% of all Americans will have a criminal record of some kind when they reach the age of 40.

So it impresses me to know that nobody cares about how criminals are being treated, since it probably is in their interest to make laws that will guarantee they are not mistreated by their own government.

America is a nation of criminals today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GeneralEmergency (profile), 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:34pm
  
  Re:
  .
  
  Or, and possibly the more reasonably assumed, America is a nation suffering from hyper-criminalization (too many laws).
  
  .
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HMTKSteve, 23 Sep 2011 @ 5:18pm

Standing
Any time the court tells a plaintif that they lack standing that same court should be required to tell the plaintif who would have standing.

Plaintif: I want to sue over this.
Court: Sorry but you lack standing.
P: What about that guy over there, can he sue?
C: Nope.
P: But somebody can sue, right?
C: Yup.
P: So... can you point me to someone who would have standing?
C: Sorry, not my job...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 23 Sep 2011 @ 6:54pm
  
  Re: Standing
  That's easy: Anyone who doesn't know they are being secretly spied on has standing to challenge the spying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
edebiyat, 25 Sep 2011 @ 8:06am

Edebiyat
wwww.yeniedebiyat.blogspot.com
Edebiyat ve Şiir sitesi
Yazılı soruları, T�rk edebiyatı ders notları, Dil ve anlatım ders notları, diksioyn ders notları,Sesli şiirler, fon m�zikleri, hikayeler, masallar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
baby, 26 Sep 2011 @ 7:21am

Oh, you mean the government can't take away the rights of its citizens just because they want to. It is about time a court mentioned that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prowest, 8 Dec 2011 @ 11:38pm

Thank goodness. I'm tried of people that TRULY hate my freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]