U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Rule On Constitutionality of Bulk Surveillance

An anonymous reader writes "On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk acquisition and storage of phone record metadata. The petition (PDF) for a Supreme Court ruling was submitted as a result of U.S. District Judge Richard Leon staying his ruling (PDF), pending an appeal, in a suit in which he concluded that collection of phone metadata without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs had bypassed the federal appeals court and applied directly to the high court, given Judge Leon's admission that the case had significant national security interests at stake. The Supreme Court's decision not to rule on the case means that an appeal will need to be submitted to the federal appeals court as per protocol, but there is speculation that the mass surveillance issue will likely be addressed in the legislative and executive branches of government before the judicial branch weighs in. The provision allowing the bulk collection, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, expires June 1, 2015.'"

Comments

Constitutional Court

[Anonymous Coward]

"U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of "

Seems like the US needs a Constitutional Court who rule on nothing else but constitutional matters, and cannot decline.

Re:Constitutional Court

[MickyTheIdiot]

Not only are they a court purchased by corporate interests, they are intellectually weak and the lack any courage to do the right thing.

Re:Constitutional Court

[Frobnicator]

That is one of the few mistakes our founders made. Allowing the court to ignore cases.

Obviously you didn't read the article, nor understand the summary.

The court did not ignore the case. There is a procedure. It starts at the circuit court. Then it goes through the appeals court, usually first with panel of 3, then the full appeals court. The SCOTUS is the final level of appeals.

The process works as a vetting and refining system. The SCOTUS only gets involved in situations where different appeals courts have used differing standards or when there are certain controversial or seemingly contradictory situations. The district judge wanted to get around the procedures. It is very rarely successful except in cases where urgency is required and the implications are severe, such as the 'hanging chads' controversy. The court disagreed, wanting the case to go through the normal process.

As with every issue that is a political hot topic, the SCOTUS will tend to wait to give congress a chance to address this before ruling. Often when Congress amends the law while a case is in progress, the appeal will simply remand it back to the district court with an order to follow the revised law rather than the old law.

As of now, in the DC court, his initial ruling (that the bulk collection is unconstitutional) still stands, even though he put in a stay (delay before carrying out the order) in order to allow for appeals. If he felt so strongly he could have not accepted the stay, which would mean the government would need to implement the order immediately and the feds would have needed to petition for an emergency stay from a higher court.

Right now the ruling is that the collection is unlawful. With the appeal denied so far, that decision stands. That is what we want, so don't complain about it.

Re:Constitutional Court

[Stormy Dragon]

You do realize there were almost 2 million federal cases last year? Even if the Supreme Court was in session 24/7 for the entire years, they'd have to hear arguments, rule, and write an opinion every 20 seconds to avoid ignoring any of them.

Re:Constitutional Court

[Sir_Sri]

Not really no.

By declining to take up the matter they can do so with comment (basically saying why they don't think it belongs) or they can say nothing and let lower court rulings stand.

They are the last arbiters of the constitution, not the first, if they agree completely with a lower courts interpretation then they don't need to say anything, the lower court stands.

Imagine this scenario. The government of a US state passes a law that prohibits carrying signs for protesting. Someone gets arrested, goes to court, the court tosses the law as being a clear violation of free speech. The government could try and appeal to a higher court (districts that would eventually lead to the supreme court). But if a higher court looks at it, and declines to take it, then the lower court ruling holds - passing a law against carrying signs is unconstitutional, and that is established in precedent in the law. Someone could try and appeal in future and it might get taken up by a future court, but it doesn't need to go directly to the supreme court because the supreme court is really the top of a pyramid of courts, and only need to take up a case if it's the lower court may have erred in its ruling.

Re:Constitutional Court

[Anonymous Coward]

no, they have the courage to do the right thing and allow the appellate court to rule. The only time a level of appeal should be skipped is when there are differing opinions extant at the many appellate courts.

Re:Constitutional Court

[oraclese]

Obviously you didn't read the article

No, and i should not need to. if i do, then why bother having a news aggregation page with summaries in the first place?

You must be new here...

Re:Constitutional Court

[NatasRevol]

Well, I got it from the summary.

The plaintiffs had bypassed the federal appeals court and applied directly to the high court, given Judge Leon's admission that the case had significant national security interests at stake. The Supreme Court's decision not to rule on the case means that an appeal will need to be submitted to the federal appeals court as per protocol,

Damages

[TubeSteak]

Here's another article I read today
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/27/obamas-nsa-reform-package-may-hamstring-privacy-lawsuits

Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, unlike other challengers, seeks damages from Verizon and U.S. officials â" which may keep his two cases alive, experts say. Cases brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., do not seek damages.

The request for past damages means that his lawsuit can't be mooted by legislative changes.
All the other lawsuits are only asking for injuctions, and Congress can make them go away.

Go back & get the stay lifted

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya want to see some action here? The plaintiffs should go back to judge Leon asking him to lift his stay. Since the Supreme's clearly don't view this as some kind of 'crisis' situation that needed their attention it is therefore logical that it isn't important enough to require a stay of the original ruling. If Leon lifted his stay the defendants would be appealing & moving the case forward far faster than the plaintiffs would.

Re:Go back & get the stay lifted

[Frobnicator]

That is what the judge wrote in his order. The court order makes for some intense reading compared to most rulings.

The last paragraph in his order is about as strict as he could word it: I hereby give the Government fair notice that should my ruling be upheld, this order will go into effect forthwith. Accordingly, I fully expect that during the appellate process, which will consume at least the next six months, the Government will take whatever steps necessary to comply with this order when, and if, it is upheld. Suffice it to say, requesting further time to comply with this order months from now will not be well received and could result in collateral sanctions. /Signed/ RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge.

If he removed the stay he would need to allow the government time to implement the changes. This way the clock is already ticking.

Re:Utterly gutless

[MickyTheIdiot]

They just need more time for their corporate puppetmasters to tell them what to do.. that's all.

Re:Utterly gutless

[HBI]

Or maybe they think that a decision isn't required and the lower courts can solve this. Generally, this would mean either the issue isn't important enough for them, the matter is settled law or the issue has been insufficiently litigated at a lower level. We can rule out the first two. Doesn't mean they won't come back for a bite at it if it is not resolved.

Expiration invalid.

[meerling]

"The provision allowing the bulk collection, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, expires June 1, 2015."
Yeah, right. They'll extend it indefinitely, it will never 'expire'. (Just like all the the other things that were supposed to 'expire'.)

Re:Obama's a lame duck

[Kuroji]

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Re:Time to shoot theses elderly fucks in the head

[kwbauer]

And yet they are 3 of the 5 that realized that Chris Matthews* is actually an employee of a corporation and that there is no actual way to distinguish his employer from a documentary film maker so they chose to allow Chris Matthews to continue to be employed by a corporation to do what he does and to let the documentary film maker also continue. However, you and Chris Matthews would be happier if all 9 had agreed that being employed by a corporation meant making no more politically oriented speech so that Chris Matthews would be unemployed.

*Please substitute your favorite reporter/media personality whatever that makes a living by being "the media."

Re:Utterly gutless

[lonOtter]

How is what the NSA is doing affecting you right now, such that they have to stop immediately?

They're responsible for egregiously violating nearly everyone's rights and the highest law of the land, something that they continue to make worse with each passing day. I can think of nothing more in need of a quick response.

You'd agree, if you cared at all about fundamental liberties.

Re:Obama's a lame duck

[Catbeller]

A President will be allowed to increase the power of the loose confederacy of those really in charge. Never to decrease. You think Presidents run the US? They're just executives, not kings.