Nov 112014
 November 11, 2014  Posted by  Court, Surveillance, U.S.

I seem to have missed posting a link to Part II of this series, but Jeff Vagle provides a link:

In my first two posts, I’ve opened a critical discussion of Article III standing for plaintiffs challenging government surveillance programs by introducing the 1972 Supreme Court case of Laird v. Tatum. In today’s post, I’ll examine the Court’s decision itself, which held that chilling effects arising “merely from the individual’s knowledge” of likely government surveillance did not constitute adequate injury to meet Article III standing requirements.

Read more on Concurring Opinions.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.