Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Case About NSA Surveillance That Attempted To Jump The Line
from the wait-your-turn dept
This isn't a huge surprise, but the Supreme Court has declined (without comment) to hear a case brought by EPIC concerning the NSA's bulk metadata collection program. This isn't a huge surprise -- as EPIC was clearly trying to jump the line to get the case heard directly by the Supreme Court, rather than first going through the district and appeals courts. This was a massive longshot, at best. It doesn't mean that the Supreme Court won't eventually take on the issue, but it's likely to be many years before it has a chance to directly address the question of whether or not the NSA is actually allowed to collect metadata on all phone calls under the FISA Court's questionable interpretation of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.Given that the Roberts Supreme Court seems to go out of its way to avoid actually answering the difficult questions, preferring to write very narrowly focused decisions that leave people with more questions than answers, it seems like even when the program makes it up to the Supreme Court, it may take quite some time to figure out what it actually means for these surveillance programs.
All that said, the one area where I could see the Supreme Court potentially taking a more immediate interest is in the somewhat related question of who has standing to challenge this surveillance, since in the last such case, the US government lied to the Supreme Court and the Justices relied on that very lie in making their decision. Given that, one would hope that the Supreme Court might take a more active immediate interest in the issue, but, again, it'll likely wait for other cases to boil up. It's not like the privacy and 4th Amendment rights of every single person in the US are at stake. Oh, wait...
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: bulk data, nsa, nsa surveillance, patriot act, section 215, supreme court
Companies: epic
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sure...
Something that clearly violates the 4th Amendment?
Wait your turn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sure...
My complaint is that they took the case for Obamacare really, REALLY fast.
But this one, where it *IS* violating the 4th Amendment, they say 'no, not yet'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This isn't a huge surprise"! -- So NOT that Mike repeats.
The second paragraph is a gem of Mushy Mikeness: little more than qualifiers, entirely unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "This isn't a huge surprise"! -- So NOT that Mike repeats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wavevolution
There is only one Solution to this planned chain of events.
http://www.wavevolution.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wavevolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wavevolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wavevolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wavevolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not exactly true is it Mike !!!!
you even say so on the link you provide.
"Either" the Solicitor General Lied .... OR....
But what he actually said is true, (funny that !!!)..
" And this includes a few cases that involved federal prosecutions. "
Yes, it may of led to several prosecutions, but clearly they did not rely on the evidence from the NSA to make those prosecutions, they relied on other evidence, you do understand that evidence is made inadmissible all the time, but that does not mean that other evidence, correctly gathered was not submitted, and that ALL evidence is therefore inadmissible, so he did not lie to the people or the court.
Anyone who knows how courts work would understand this, even Masnick..
At lease you Mr Masnick should not be lying about how your legal system works, as you always claiming a deep understanding of this subject, why do you make claims that just don't make any sense ?
"Can't sue the government unless you can prove standing."
that's a basic tenant of the law, and if the NSA/FBI do not rely on that evidence for their 'standing' that is lawful.
Keep in mind the basic reasoning concept...
"The absence or evidence, is not evidence of absence"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 18th, 2013 @ 7:36pm
How old were you when you first heard about it?
When was the first time you were in an american courthouse or watched a court scene in the US on the Australian news?
See, I started learning all that stuff long before you ever did. Maybe you have more years, but its our culture. Who are you to propose you know it better than us? Someone who claims to be a solar panel engineer from Australia?
A lot of what you say seems to contradict what Mike says, but the only thing backing you up is braggadocio. You think, therefore you think its true. Lots of hubris in your comments. You don't actually back anything up. You just counter with opinions, which you largely share alone.
What other evidence did they rely on?
What "or" are you relying on the government to have used to bring these cases?How is it true? (Other than your opinion)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a thought.
It would be popular as the james clapper youtube video. Red mean likes yes? I haven't see this much red since I met an depressed self cutting emo at the nuthouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Obvious Reasons to Avoid SCOTUS
Why do you think some these so-called defense arguments that seem so ludicrous and defy logic, have staunch defenders in elected officials and judges. Are you really all that naive to think the fix isn't already in?
The good old American "Just-Us" system....
Mike C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Obvious Reasons to Avoid SCOTUS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]