Supreme Court Says Eavesdropping Law Can't Be Challenged
Plaintiffs can't prove harm and thus don't have standing
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said plaintiffs cannot challenge a federal law that allows eavesdropping on international conversations involving Americans, a case touching on government efforts to fight terrorism.
By a 5-4 vote, the country's highest court said lawyers, journalists and human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did not have legal standing to sue because they could not show they had suffered any injury.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?