Lawyers For The One Case Where There's Proof Of Warrantless Wiretapping Decide Not To Appeal To Supreme Court
from the sad dept
We've covered the various twists and turns of the Al-Haramain case against the US government for a while. If you don't recall, click that link for some background. The short version is that this is the one and only case where someone has evidence of being a victim of a warrantless wiretap, and that's only because the government screwed up and revealed the evidence by accident. Other attempts to challenge the legality of warrantless wiretapping had all failed, because no one could show "standing" that they'd actually been harmed by the policy. But with the Al-Haramain case, with evidence in hand, and some initial wins, eventually the appeals court shot down the case, saying that the government could just claim sovereign immunity and get out of any lawsuit. In other words, the court gave the federal government free reign to do whatever the hell it wants in violation of the 4th Amendment, and even if it's revealed, gave them a massive get out of jail free card. I'm sure that won't be abused at all...Now, the lawyers representing Al-Haramain have decided that they will not appeal the case to the Supreme Court, on the belief that the "current composition" of the court works against them. In other words, they believe that the current Justices on the court would side with the appeals court in rejecting their case, and then that would be precedent across the country (unless Congress changed the law, which it's unlikely to do). The "hope" then is that somehow, down the road, someone else somehow gets evidence that they, too, were spied upon without a warrant, and it happens in a different district, and (hopefully) that circuit's appeals court rules differently, setting up a circuit split. Oh, and that by the time that happens, the "composition" of the court shifts enough that the court actually respects the 4th Amendment. In other words: none of this is likely. Instead, the feds retain their ability to spy on people without warrants in direct violation of the 4th Amendment.
In other words, bye-bye 4th Amendment. It was nice knowing you.
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, al-haramain, privacy, supreme court, warrantless wiretapping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want to say that there is some bright spot in this, in that maybe someday a similar case will spring up (it will eventually, the government screws up once, it will screw up a thousand times more) and that the court justices will be different. But it won't, the justices will continue to remain puppets to the current narrative.
It's funny how such an integral part of our law depends on how several key people who we have no say over feel on any given day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Constitution
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-wo rld.html?_r=3&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&
http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/10/is-the-u-s-c onstitution-obsolete/
Some of the problems that arise when a defining document such as the U.S. Constitution is found to be irrelevant to the times are perhaps best exemplified by the current constipation of the Congress of the USA and the the gun laws of the US. Clearly, given that the 4th amendment seems to be dead in the US, the Executive has simply chosen to begin ignoring the parts it doesn't find relevant to today's problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Constitution
> the U.S. Constitution is not held in high regard (Google is your
> friend) because it is nearly impossible to amend
That's not a bug, it's a feature, and a damn good one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Constitution
> the U.S. Constitution is not held in high regard because it is nearly
> impossible to amend
That's not a bug, it's a feature, and a damn good one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Constitution
The sources you mention are mere opinions. Regardless of how old or pointless is an Amendment the Government SHOULD NOT disrespect them but rather promote discussion and official ballots on any change. I can assure you that not many Americans will want to lose the protection the 4th Amendment provides and risking having their houses invaded by anti-terrorism-crazed police troops. And honestly, when you look at Kim Dotcom's case it's clear that such protections are needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One day it will be Bye Bye Federal Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: US Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Constitution
> perhaps it is about time to straight the lot with modern life, human
> rights, equality etc. taken into account.
Yeah, it would be so much better if we were like the UK where people can go to prison merely for offending someone, or be arrested for making an off-color tweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> some initial wins, eventually the appeals court shot down the
> case, saying that the government could just claim sovereign
> immunity and get out of any lawsuit.
I still don't get this. The Supreme Court decided a hundred or more years ago that government can't claim sovereign immunity in matters of constitutional law, and even if it could based on common law, Congress waived the immunity by statute when it passed 18 USC 1983, which allows for civil suits against the government and individuals in their personal capacity for deprivation of civil rights under color of authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]