Appeals court overturns anti-spying decision; plaintiffs without leg to stand on
“A federal appeals court Friday ordered the dismissal of an ACLU lawsuit challenging President Bush’s domestic surveillance program,” CNN reports.premier pro 7 tryout patch
The plaintiffs — a group of journalists, scholars and legal advocates — had no legal standing to pursue their claims because they could not show they were targeted by the National Security Agency’s warrantless spying program, the court decided in a 2-1 vote.
[…]
The court ordered a federal judge in Detroit to formally dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in January 2006. This was the first appeals ruling to address the program. The ruling did not address the larger constitutional questions of whether the NSA program is legal, or the limits on permissible warrantless surveillance.
[…]
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the program last August, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth amendments. She said is also violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which Congress passed in 1978.
The opinion, issued by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, is here (pdf). The 6th Circuit includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.premier pro 7 tryout patch
Having concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, the court did not reach the Government’s argument that the case is moot. “In January, not long before the appeal was argued, the White House announced that it would submit the N.S.A. program for supervision by a secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” the New York Times reports.premier pro 7 tryout patch
The case, American Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al., was decided by Judges Alice M. Batchelder, Julia Smith Gibbons and Ronald Lee Gilman. premier pro 7 tryout patch
Judges Batchelder and Gibbons voted to remand the case to district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. They also vacated the district court’s order enjoining the surveillance program. Judge Gilman dissented.premier pro 7 tryout patch
Law professor Orin Kerr:premier pro 7 tryout patch
As I understand it, the plaintiffs in the case had argued that they thought they might be covered by the TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program], but had no particular reason (other than the apparent existence of the program) to think they in fact had been or were to be monitored. Their claimed injury-in-fact was that they were holding back on sending international communications out of fear that they were being monitored. The main question in the case was whether this claim was sufficient to establish standing to challenge the legality of the TSP program.
Judge Batchelder’s opinion goes through the complaint claim-by-claim, explaining her reasons why the plaintiffs either lacked standing for each claim in light of this alleged injury or why the plaintiffs lost on the merits (or both). I am no expert in standing doctrine, but based on my quick read I tend to think this was the right approach and that the result seems correct. (Link)
See also this informative post by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.premier pro 7 tryout patch