Is the NSA Spying Scandal Headed to the Supreme Court? Case Likely Comes Down to Standing
While the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, it can only consider cases that are properly before it. One of the biggest roadblocks for litigants is legal standing. In basic terms, a party must have suffered an actual injury in order to ask the Court for judicial relief.
Most recently, the federal government and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) have been sparring over whether the Supreme Court can hear the privacy group’s legal challenge to the U.S. National Security Agency’s (NSA) controversial data collection program.
EPIC has filed a writ of mandamus requesting that the Supreme Court overturn an order by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that requires Verizon to turn its phone records over to the NSA. It alleges that the NSA has exceeded its authority by seeking such unfettered access to U.S. phone records, arguing that “even without the content of the calls, [phone records] can reveal an immense amount of sensitive, private information.”
In response to the petition, the federal government argues that EPIC lacks standing to bring the suit. It specifically points to the language of the Patriot Act, which only authorizes legal challenges by the U.S. government or entities that receive government orders to produce business records.
Overturning a ruling of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in response to a writ of mandamus would be a “drastic and extraordinary remedy that is reserved for really extraordinary causes,” the response brief states. Rather, the government argues that the proper avenue to seek legal redress is to file a suit in federal court, rather than appealing directly to the Supreme Court.
As previously discussed on this Constitutional Law Blog, similar claims failed last term. In Clapper v. Amnesty Intl. USA, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs, which included attorneys and human rights, labor, legal, and media organizations, lacked standing to bring a suit challenging the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which authorized electronic surveillance targeting non-U.S. persons abroad. The justices specifically rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that they had suffered injury in fact because there was a reasonable likelihood that their communications with their foreign contacts will be intercepted under the wiretapping program.
Similarly, EPIC will have difficulty proving that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order will lead to surveillance of its individual phone records. Without a real stake in the case, the Supreme Court can deny the petition on the issue of standing alone.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ARTICLES
SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments in Six Casesby DONALD SCARINCI on March 21, 2017
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in six cases last week. The most noteworthy case is Murr...
Racial Bias Trumps Juror Secrecy in Pena-Rodriguez v Coloradoby DONALD SCARINCI on March 16, 2017
A divided U.S. Supreme Court recently held that while jury deliberations should normally be kept sec...
Gloucester County School Board v GG Transgender Case Returned to Lower Courtby DONALD SCARINCI on March 14, 2017
The U.S. Supreme Court will not decide the potential blockbuster transgender bathroom case anytime s...
- Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedoms of Press
- Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
- The Right to Bear Arms
- Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
- Due Process
- Eminent Domain
- Rights of Criminal Defendants
Preamble to the Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.