Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Won't Hear ACLU Wiretap Case

Posted by kdawson on from the standing-knee-deep-in-paradox dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The US Supreme Court refused without comment the ACLU's appeal of a lower court ruling that prevented them from suing over the government's warrantless TSP program. The problem was a Catch-22: they lack legal 'standing' to sue over it because they can't prove that they were suspected terrorists, but neither can they find out who was actually suspected, because this is a matter of national security." Update: 02/20 00:17 GMT by KD : Removed an incorrect statement after a reader pointed out that, with the expiration of the Protect America Act this weekend, foreign surveillance will revert to oversight by the FISA court.

1 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What did you expect? by Artagel · · Score: 5, Informative

    It takes 4 justices to grant certiorari to a case, except in certain capital punishment circumstances. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Certiorari Therefore, we know that at most 3 justices were interested in hearing the case. None of them felt strongly enough about this to write a dissent from the denial of a grant of certiorari. That has happened in the anti-terrorism context, with Justice Breyer writing and Souter and Ginsburg joining. URL:www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-1195Breyer.pdf>. President Bush has appointed two out of 9. A full four, enough to grant certiorari, are liberal and often at odds with the president.

    Regardless of your politics, the decision of the trial court was awful.
    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/08/shocking-decision-in-aclu-v-nsa.html This just puts an ACLU fantasy about its reach to bed.

    Justice is served.