Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

CLAPPER v. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA

Docket No.: 11-1025
Certiorari Granted: May 21 2012
Argued: October 29, 2012
Decided: February 26, 2013

Topics:

Article I, EPA, ERISA, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Medicaid, Natural Resources, Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, habeas, habeas corpus, judicial review, patent, privacy, probable cause, protected activities, separation of powers

PartyNames: James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, et al. v. Amnesty International USA, et al.
Petitioner: James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, et al.
Respondent: Amnesty International USA, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Citation: 638 F. 3d 118
Supreme Court Docket
Supreme Court Observer Blog Post for CLAPPER v. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA

James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, et al.
v.
Amnesty International USA, et al.
Background:

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. 1881a (Supp. II 2008)-referred to here as Section 1881a - allows the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence to authorize jointly the "targeting of [non-United States] persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States" to acquire "foreign intelligence information," normally with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's prior approval of targeting and other procedures. 50 U.S.C. 1881a(a), (b), (g)(2) and (i)(3); cf. 50 U.S.C. 1881a(c) (2). Respondents are United States persons who may not be targeted for surveillance under Section 1881a. Respondents filed this action on the day that Section 1881a was enacted, seeking both a declaration that Section 1881a is unconstitutional and an injunction permanently enjoining any foreign-intelligence surveillance from being conducted under Section 1881a.

Question Presented:

Whether respondents lack Article III standing to seek prospective relief because they proffered no evidence that the United States would imminently acquire their international communications using Section 1881a-authorized surveillance and did not show that an injunction prohibiting Section 1881a-authorized surveillance would likely redress their purported injuries.

CLAPPER v. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA
ORAL ARGUMENT

October 29, 2012

Listen to Oral Argument in CLAPPER v. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED
Vote: 5-4
For more coverage on CLAPPER v. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA please see our blog posting.
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)