The 5 Cases That Could Pit the Supreme Court Against the NSA

An anonymous reader writes: We've all been wondering how the U.S. Judicial branch will deal with the NSA's bulk metadata surveillance. Getting a case to the Supreme Court isn't a quick process, so we haven't seen much movement yet. But later this year, several cases have the potential to force a Supreme Court ruling on the NSA, whether they like it or not. Ars summarizes the five likeliest cases, and provides estimates on their timelines. For example, Klayman v. Obama was one of the first lawsuits filed after the Snowden leaks were published. The first judge to hear it actually ordered the government to halt the metadata program and destroy all data, but stayed his own order pending appeal. The case is now awaiting a decision from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, and several other high-profile lawsuits are awaiting its outcome. The decision in Klayman will have a domino effect on NSA-related court battles across the country.

Comments

Re:A wish from an American

[WindBourne]

Taco,
You obviously have no fucking clue of what you are talking about.
NSA holds no power, other than to control what is shown above. They can not arrest anybody. And NSA absolutely does not control anybody else, esp. in SCOTUS.

Now, as to what is allowed and what is not, are normally 2 different things. Sadly, in this case, the line is obscured. I have guesses as to what will happen, but that makes me no different than you. However, when you nutjobs come out screaming that the constitution is being stamped all over, well, you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about.

As to snowden, that fuck is both whistle blower and traitor. The fact that you only see one side of that issue speaks volumes about you.

Re: A wish from an American

[WindBourne]

First off, NSA has full right to spy outside of the nation. The constitution is fine with it. When snowden told everybody not just what we were doing, but how, he became a traitor.
you seem to want to ignore that part. Why?
here is a simple question. I grant you that he is a whistle blower. Personally, I am thankful for the first part. Had the neo-cons controlled 2004 committe not weakened oversight, than the current issue on american spying never would have happened. But let assume the he goes out and shoots his gf. Do you think that he should get a pass because he blew the whistle?
Or let's assume that somebody you love is bombed by AQ, and it is shown conclusively that AQ escaped detection because of snowden? Now is he guilty?
Or suppose that Isis attacks with biological and 1 million westerners die because we could no longer track their messages. Now is snowden guilty?

There are 2 issues here and u want to treat them as 1. Wrong.