Nov 182014
 
 November 18, 2014  Court, Surveillance, U.S.

Jeff Vagle writes:

In my first three 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.