ILNews

US Supreme Court takes pass on cyberspying petition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although the Supreme Court of the United States decided Monday, not to consider a petition challenging the legality of the National Security Agency’s surveillance activities, one cybersecurity expert at IU expects the issue will eventually come before the nine justices.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Fred Cate said he was not surprised by the Supreme Court’s decision but was still disappointed.

The petition was filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center after disclosures by whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the federal government was collecting telephone data on all U.S. citizens. EPIC argued that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court exceeded its legal authority when it ordered Verizon Business Network Services Inc. to turn over to the NSA all telephone records on all customers.

Cate was the lead author of an amicus curiae brief that supported the petition’s call for the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus. After the petition was filed, Cate conceded the probability of the court granting the petition’s request for a writ of mandamus was slim. However, the petition argued, the court had to act because the NSA ignored Congress’s directives.

If the Supreme Court had granted the writ of mandamus, that would have prevented the government from overstepping its authority. Instead, the court sent the opposite message.   

“What the Supreme Court has said, by not saying anything, is ‘tough luck,’” Cate said.

The Obama administration argued the Supreme Court should deny the petition because it had not been considered by the district courts. The problem with that argument, Cate said, is that the district courts and the FISC are on equal footing and one does not have authority over the other.

Even so, a fair number of other petitions charging that FISC’s exclusive jurisdiction is unconstitutional are pending in district courts. A district court or appellate court agreeing with a petitioner would cause the administration to urge the Supreme Court to get involved, Cate said. Federal officials will likely contend the issue is one of national security.

The mere filing of these petitions will not be enough to get the NSA and the administration to rethink its actions, Cate said. In fact, the only thing that got their attention was the concern from industry and foreign leaders over the cyberspying by the United States.







 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT