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

A wish from an American

[Taco Cowboy]

As an American of course I wish that the SCOTUS would honor the very spirit that makes the USA special - in which, the government should never have given any power to intrude on the citizens' rights

But then, as a person who knows what the United States of America has turned into ... I ain't gonna be holding my breath

Them SCOTUS people are as corrupt as the rest --- and to think the NSA (and those powerful god-like beings who holds control over spook agencies such as NSA) don't already have influences over the SCOTUS judges is to deny the reality

Re: A wish from an American

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden is a Hero

Re:A wish from an American

[MightyMartian]

"Well, Mr. Justice, it appears from the following web searches you made over the last eight months that you like chicks with dicks. Now you can either rule for the the Government, or the Wall Street Journal gets a hot new exclusive..."

Re:A wish from an American

[epyT-R]

True, they leave the arresting, torture, and illegal imprisonment to others, but the NSA does monitor and collect private communications of US citizens without warrants. All of this behavior IS illegal, or was, originally. If it's not now, then those who passed the new laws circumventing constitutional protections are the traitors who should be shot. This puts snowden into patriot territory.

You don't like it when others with stricter interpretations of the constitution express themselves (nevermind pass law), yet grant yourself an exemption and try to pass it off as patriotism? Fuck off, hypocrite. If you like heavy handed state tyranny, why not move to north korea?

Re:A wish from an American

[stephanruby]

"Well, Mr. Justice, it appears from the following web searches you made over the last eight months that you like chicks with dicks. Now you can either rule for the the Government, or the Wall Street Journal gets a hot new exclusive..."

That's way too tame. This is the way I'd envision the conversation.

"Well, Mr. Justice, we have the videotapes of your sexual harassment campaign against your subordinates, we have the books that prove all the fraud you and your wife committed in real estate, and we have the remote kill-switch to your pacemaker. Why do you think you got the job? You would obviously never had gotten the job if we had no leverage against you.

Please just wait ten years before you shut down the worst of our programs. In ten years time, we'll be using new technology, new loopholes, and new programs, that even Snowden doesn't know about. "

Re: A wish from an American

[epyT-R]

1. yes they are supposed to spy outside the nation's borders, not on citizens. By doing so, we do what the terrorists want to do: destroy our liberties. Who was snowden supposed to tell? The only leverage over the washington crowd is public shame. Snowden was a response to their deplorable behavior. They created snowden.

2. If al quada is a threat, congress should declare war on the nations supporting it, and we hurl cruise missiles at them until they stop attacking us. If they are not threats, then we shouldn't be there. We don't win freedom by compromising citizens rights at home.

Klayman

[overshoot]

I'd feel a lot better about this case if the plaintiff (Klayman) weren't proceeding pro se and actually had a lawyer who knew how to argue a case instead of using his pleadings as a political soap box.

Re:Klayman

[wiredlogic]

I'd feel a lot better about this case if the plaintiff (Klayman) weren't proceeding pro se and actually had a lawyer who knew how to argue a case instead of using his pleadings as a political soap box.

The American justice system has been co-opted by lawyers who've constructed a labyrinthine system of rules meant to enrich themselves by wresting control from the common man and forcing the use of their services. It shouldn't be necessary to avail oneself of legal aid to pursue civil torts. His choice to do this himself is in itself a protest of the horrible state of affairs in American courtrooms.

Re:Klayman

[alen]

having served on juries and heard how people try to argue their case in something minor like a speeding ticket, there is a good reason for lawyers. most people will come into court spouting some nonsense that doesn't make sense or doesn't follow the law.

Re:Klayman

[dj245]

I'd feel a lot better about this case if the plaintiff (Klayman) weren't proceeding pro se and actually had a lawyer who knew how to argue a case instead of using his pleadings as a political soap box.

The American justice system has been co-opted by lawyers who've constructed a labyrinthine system of rules meant to enrich themselves by wresting control from the common man and forcing the use of their services. It shouldn't be necessary to avail oneself of legal aid to pursue civil torts. His choice to do this himself is in itself a protest of the horrible state of affairs in American courtrooms.

It shouldn't be necessary to hire a plumber to hook up a dishwasher, or hire an electrician to wire an extra circuit. I am a licensed professional engineer with a strong background in piping and electrical. I can do both tasks easilly, and understand the theory of each. When the building inspector comes around though, I would be biting my nails. Only someone who does a trade or profession for a living every day has a hope of knowing all the little rules, tricks, and pitfalls.

It's fine to have a law enthusiast represent themselves when it is their own skin on the line. Not so good when they will be arguing a case that may well be the legal precedent for the next 100 years. The only saving grace is that if he does get to the Supreme Court, the justices generally do a good job of making all the arguments themselves and just use the lawyers as their pawns to advance their preconceived talking points.

Re:Klayman

[Kjella]

It shouldn't be necessary to hire a plumber to hook up a dishwasher, or hire an electrician to wire an extra circuit. I am a licensed professional engineer with a strong background in piping and electrical. I can do both tasks easilly, and understand the theory of each. When the building inspector comes around though, I would be biting my nails. Only someone who does a trade or profession for a living every day has a hope of knowing all the little rules, tricks, and pitfalls.

The problem is that I wouldn't want to be the co-occupant, tenant, sleepover guest, new owner, home insurance company, in a different apartment or chained building of someone playing electrician and plumber, if you die in a fire of your own making I don't really care but if you're going to burn down the whole house with me in it then it matters. Every so often we get media examples of people doing home renovation not just in violation of code and regulation but sanity and safety. And the problem is often inside the wall where you don't see it without invasive procedures, are those downlights properly embedded or is it just spotlights in a cut out hole with extension cords behind it? That really happens. The make all these little pitfalls to keep people from even trying. I know what you mean, my dad has been a handyman all his life doing everything himself that he could get away with and if everyone was like him we wouldn't really have a problem. But a lot of people don't have a clue and don't realize it, maybe there could be a "light" certificate but they'd probably think it makes them grandmasters.

SCOTUS can't be forced to rule on anything

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Supreme Court can choose to accept or reject any case assigned to it and, historically, tends to take a minimalist approach. These cases are of the sort that the court will accept, but it is unwise to assume that any decision will resolve root issues. Many are remanded to the appeals court for further review and many are decided on very narrow grounds.

A SCOTUS ruling can have very broad and sometimes unexpected impact and the court seems to follow the medical credo... "First, do no harm". Every judge is familiar with very questionable decisions of the past (e.g. Dred Scott). They would all prefer not to be remembered for another such decision.

Don't get your hopes up.

[koan]

Bush v Gore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Citizens United
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Heien v North Carolina (you got to read this one)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And so on...

Re:Don't get your hopes up.

[raymorris]

In Helen, the state law required that all "originally equipped rear lamps [be] in good working order" . The officer saw that the rear brake light was not in working order. Your contention is that it was unconstitutionally unreasonable to make the traffic stop, because a year later an appeals court might decide that "all originally equipped rear lamps" means only tail lights, not brake lights?

In Bush v Gore, the court declined to force a state to hand-pick different voting standards for different precincts. Are you of the opinion that the Gore campaign must be allowed to tailor the rules not just on a county a by a county basis, but also precinct a by precinct? You realize that's the only way to get to a Gore win, right? One of Gore's team released a complete analysis two years layer, giving details of "why Gore should have won". To get there, he had to argue that hanging chads SHOULD count in precinct 3 (which leaned Democrat) but should NOT count in precinct 1 (which leaned Republican). You don't even have to read Florida's arguments in that case; Gore's arguments are ridiculous prima facial, insisting on having inconsistent rules from polling place to polling place. The number one fundamental principle required for a fair election (or fair anything) is that the same rules need to apply to everyone. Insisting on different rules for Republican vs Democrat districts makes the "Gore won" proposition preposterous.

Re:Don't get your hopes up.

[koan]

Your contention is that it was unconstitutionally unreasonable to make the traffic stop

I never said that.

Are you of the opinion

I'm of the opinion Bush was the worst thing that ever happened to this country, until Obama came along of course.

Re:Don't get your hopes up.

[Cramer]

Find the alternate universe where Gore won and tell me how that turned out. I would be hard pressed to say we've ever had a good president. (Historically, we've had some really entertaining ones, but "good"???)

Re:Don't get your hopes up.

[koan]

We will never know, but we can say Bush was one of the worst if not THE worst (prior to Obama)

President Jackson

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let them enforce it."

Re:could-a wonka wonka

[TheRealHocusLocus]

I am Sam. Uncle Sam I am.
That Uncle Sam, that Uncle Sam, I do not trust that Uncle Sam.
Do you like backbone voice/data taps and bulk retention?
I do not like them, Uncle Sam. They're just tools for blackmail, thugs and future despots. They am.
Would you like them here or there?
What bullshit, Sam. You put them everywhere.
Would you like it bound by Charter? Can I promise to do no evil? Tartar?
We tried that, Sam. The old folks have retired and it's run by young sociopaths who don't see anything wrong with even tapping their own poor children. They're smart-stupids, blinded by the buck and the tech, they do not realize what a sorry-ass country this could become WHEN that stuff falls in the wrong hands.
Then introduce a bill into the House. Ask your senator, man... or mouse?
Mumble National Security mumble, they say. I think they are under blackmail, today.
Then will you, won't you, take it to the Judge? [wink]
We did, in Hepting vs. AT&T. The only case that would have exposed, in the discovery process, the true extent of domestic telecom surveillance. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the case by citing a law that was enacted AFTER the case was filed. The Supreme Court refused to hear it. Miscarriage of justice, much?
Your bitter phrases take lots of time, you cannot even make them rhyme.
That's because I trying to communicate something REAL, asshole.
Should I put NSA in a box?
Guard the hen house with a fox?
You mean, appoint a Director that goes before Congress under oath, pretends to know nothing and needs both hands to find his ass in the dark?? We've tried that too. I thought it was unlawful to lie to Congress, guess not.
Would you like it on a boat? Would you like it with a goat?
That's the kind of transparent childish misdirection we've come to expect from you people. Like that stupid false metadata conundrum, a limited hang-out where you 'pretend' to relinquish voluntary data sharing agreements, and fill everyone's ears with talk of metadata. When all the while the backbone taps ensure you will obtain all that by other means, and more besides.
You do not like Big Brother, so you say,
Try it! Try it! And you may.
Fuck off.

It's been tried, Stalin would be proud of what we have built already. The TRUE extent of our domestic spy apparatus is, by now, probably hidden and partitioned into layers. The folks who built it out knew full well it would not pass Constitutional muster, and so they have probably created a series of interlocking pieces and black-funded faux-telecom 'private' companies that have title of the 'assets'. It may require a massive de-funding and deconstruction effort, and the sociopaths that have built this thing may 'turn turtle' and put their legs in the air... but that will NOT be enough. We're back to Hepting vs. AT&T again, it is the private telecommunications technicians that must come forward en masse and help identify these interconnect points.

I wish I could trust you, Uncle Sam
Can I interest you in some... spam?

Re:Worst presidents since 1980

[koan]

I thought you indicated that was a horrible ruling.

No I said "don't get your hopes up" that's all I said.

One of the Judges stated

In her dissent, Sotomayor argued that the reasonableness of a search or seizure should instead be determined by evaluating "an officer's understanding of the facts against the actual state of the law."

Others, presumably in the know, have stated this allows a violation of the 4th amendment at anytime by allowing the officer to claim ignorance.

So while the case was minor, the implications of the decision are not.

Of course you would know this if you actually read the wiki, instead of spending your time reading into what I stated, and did your due diligence.

Re:could-a

[gomiam]

-There will be a nuclear terrorist attack on New York, perpetrated by Israel, the Bush administration, and the Pentagon, with obvious evidence right out in the open, and nobody will question it.

Still waiting for that nuclear attack.