Clapper V International Amnesty
Clapper v International Amnesty
Facts
In 2008 the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) adopted statute 1881a, which pertained to obtaining foreign intelligence through surveillance of electronic communication. A group of Attorneys, Humanitarian, and other organizations that have foreign business partners, did not agree with the changes the Statute 1881a has planned. For they felt that the statute will injure or strain current and future plans with their foreign partners. Therefore Amnesty International, a group of individuals whom do business with foreign individuals, filed a suit stating that the statute was facially unconstitutional as
well an injunction relief of the authorization of statute 1881a.
Statute 1881a
o"Permits the Attorney general and the Director of National Intelligence to acquire foreign intelligence information by jointly authorizing the surveillance of individuals who are not "United States persons" and are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States."
Procedural History
In 2008 Respondents first filed a suit that the amendment was unconstitutional, and a permanent injunction of authorization. To the District Ct. for the Southern District of NY where they found the respondents lacked standing. The Respondents appealed in the US Ct. of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the judgment was reversed. Now the Petitioners ask the Supreme Ct. to block judicial review of the respondent's challenge.
Issues
Does Atticle III stand, for the respondents in order to gain prospective relief under the FISA?
Holding
No, Article 3 no standing; the respondents were unable prove that an injury had occurred.
Judgment
5-4 Majority for Clapper, Reversed.
Legal Reasoning, majority concurrences and dissents
(MO) by Justice Samuel A. Alita, Jr.
1. To establish Article III standing
a. "An injury must be "concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redress able by a favorable ruling" (Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms)"
2. The majority feels that respondent's term of injury is not that of the definition, but of speculation.
a. The respondents fail to establish a correct trace of their supposed "injury" back to the statute, due to a chain of speculated observation.
b. Respondents fail to recognize that statute 1881a is one of many surveillance procedures that the government posses.
c. "Respondents cannot create standing, by making expenditures based on hypothetical fear of future harm, that it is not impending. See Laird vs. Tatum."
Dissent by Justice Breyer
1. In his dissent Breyer, disagrees with majority's opinion that the injuries brought upon the respondents are indeed harmful but "the question is not whether they "concrete or particularized", but if they are "imminent or actual"."
a. Justice Breyer states three main changes to the statute 1881a; which all three give more power with little authorization to the Att. General, for foreign surveillance.
b. These changes of power hold a great threat to the respondent's process of how they go about their foreign affairs.
2. Breyer proceeds to read several affidavits from respondents who work or associate with foreign individuals, that they believe to have been injured.
a. One inparticular was attorney John McKay, who defended an individual that was acquitted of terrorist activities. "His defendant prior to the 2008 FISA had over 10,000 phone calls and 20,000 e-mails intercepted with ease. "
b. There is no doubt more will be intercepted, causing this to be an impending injury to all who try to seek communication with their foreign colleagues, partners, etc.
c. Actions such as these will result in greater expenditures used to create a safe connection between both parties.
Relation To Other Cases, Precedent
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms was used in Alito's MO, as what defines an injury. As well as Laird v. Tatum where the Court upholds their view that expenditures used for hypothetical fear cannot be used for standing. The court upheld both of these precedents to make their judgment in this case, in the argument of an injury, therefore expanding the area of permissible action.
Source of Law
• Article illof the Constitution
• 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
• FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA)
Clapper v. International Amnesty brief 2
A. Facts
• In 2008, Amnesty International and several other organizations filed suit in federal court against Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
• Amnesty stated that the newly passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment Act of 2008 (FAA) violated their constitutional rights because there was a reasonable suspicion that the acts procedures would be used to spy on their (Amnesty) communications and that they incurred expensive costs trying to prevent this.
• Clapper claimed that Amnesty International had no standing because they had not been spied on or "injured" before or during the lawsuit.
• The suit asked for the statue to be ruled unconstitutional and that the procedure be halted and not executed.
B. Procedural History
• Amnesty International filed a complaint with the District Court for the Southern District of New York, but the court ruled through a summary judgment that having a fear of future surveillance did not support Amnesty's claim of injury and thus they did not have grounds for a lawsuit.
• Amnesty appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the lower court's decision was subsequently reversed. The appeals court ruled on the standing, stating that the costs incurred for preventing unwanted monitoring was a present injury caused by the FAA, but they would not touch the constitutionality of the FAA.
• Clapper then appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted him a writ of certiorari.
C. Issues
• Does the respondents' case have Article III standing?
• Did the FISA Amendment Act cause any form of injury to the respondent at any time before or during the case?
D. Holding
• The Court held in a 5-4 ruling in favor of Clapper
• Held that Amnesty International did not have Article III standing from their claim that a fear of monitoring and costs from prevention were present or past injuries.
E. Judgment
• The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision that ruled that Amnesty's case had standing stemming from the imposed costs from surveillance prevention.
F. Legal Reasons, Majority, Concurrences, and Dissents
• Majority opinion (Alito)
o Ruled that Amnesty International was unable to show that an injury had occurred and thus, they did not have Article III standing. The court justified this by stating that just because there was a fear that the government might run surveillance on the plaintiff, it does show that future injury would occur without a doubt.
o The court also struck down the claim that the expensive costs of Amnesty's preventative methods were proof that a present injury had already occurred. They ruled that this cost was self-inflicted and hence could not be used to provide standing because it would open the door to anyone claiming suit from a self imposed injury.
• Dissenting Opinion (Breyer)
o In this opinion, he held that the possibility of the government targeting the plaintiff was not speculative, but instead found that it was inevitable that this would occur.
o Breyer suggests that because the history of government monitoring is well documented, the claim of future targeting becomes concrete and becomes an actual possibility.
o He also asserts that many of Amnesty's clients are at odds with the US government and this make the likelihood of specific surveillance even more likely.
o Finally, he shows that cases before this have had even more speculative injuries, but they received standing on the fact that future injury was highly probable, as he claims is the case in Clapper v. Amnesty International.
G. Relation to other cases, Precedent
• Monsanto v Geertson Seed Farms was used as precedent to define injury to determine standing in the case. It would expand the area of permissible action.
• Laird v Tatum stated that you cannot use future speculation of injury to determine standing unless the threat is immediate and actual. Used as precedent, this would expand the area of permissible action.
H. Source of Law
• The court looked at the case to see if it was in line with Article III of the Constitution
• Original surveillance act, 1978 foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
• FISA Amendment Act of 2008 (FAA)