The Washington Post

At Supreme Court, challengers to wiretap law say its secrecy creates a Catch-22

Several Supreme Court justices expressed concern Monday that lawyers, journalists and human rights researchers who think they are caught up in a sweeping federal surveillance law may never be able to challenge the law in court.

Those contesting Congress’s 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) say they are in a Catch-22: The government says they cannot challenge the law unless they can show that their communications are under surveillance, but such information is strictly secret.

The amendments were meant to strengthen the government’s monitoring of potential terrorists and allow it to obtain permission from a secret court to conduct surveillance on communications between those in the United States and targets overseas.

Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union said that means that lawyers, journalists and others who are likely to be in communication with people overseas who are of interest to the government will be caught in what he called “dragnet surveillance.”

His clients must alter their normal activities, he said: being more circumspect in telephone conversations and e-mails, and in some cases traveling abroad to meet with clients or sources.

An analysis of the 2011-2012 Supreme Court session, including justice voting patterns and key cases.

A district court dismissed their standing to bring the lawsuit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit said it could proceed.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices that it is not enough for those who want to challenge the law to speculate that they may be affected by it.

“The government conduct being challenged has to either have occurred or be ‘certainly impending,’ ” Verrilli said, quoting from one of the court’s precedents.

That prompted a chorus of questions from the court’s liberals about whether anyone would ever be able to challenge the law. The targets overseas have no constitutional rights, and their U.S. lawyers are not technically the subjects of the wiretaps, they said.

“I assume that it is an injury for an American speaking in America to have his communication intercepted against his will by the American government,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said. “We take that as a harm; is that right?”

Verrilli answered: “It may be a harm, yes.”

“Okay,” Breyer responded. “So the question is, how likely is that to occur?”

Verrilli stuck to his argument that those challenging the law could only speculate that their communications would be overheard, prompting a long round of questioning from Justice Elena Kagan, who preceded him in the job as the government’s top appellate lawyer.

“As a lawyer, would you take precautions, or would you pick up the phone and start writing e-mails to all those people?” Kagan asked.

Verrilli said lawyers had reason to be cautious under the previous FISA law, or under ethics requirements, but not necessarily the 2008 amendments.

Justice Antonin Scalia, Verrilli’s tormentor during last term’s arguments over the Affordable Care Act, was his ally Monday. Scalia said it might be true that no one is in a position to challenge the law — but so what?

“We’ve had cases in the past where it is clear that nobody would have standing to challenge what is brought before this court,” Scalia said. “And we’ve said that that just proves that under our system of separated powers, it is none of our business.”

He noted that the government’s plans for surveillance are reviewed by the secret FISA court, which is also charged with looking out for the constitutional rights of Americans.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told Jaffer that he faced a high hurdle in establishing that his clients could be so certain of government action that they would have standing to challenge the law.

“Our standard is ‘certainly impending,’ and you articulated it by saying ‘substantial risk,’ ” Roberts said. “There is obviously a vast difference between those two.”

It appeared from the questioning that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy might hold the balance in the case. He indicated to Verrilli that it seemed more than speculation that the lawyers with clients overseas had good reason to think the government was listening.

“It’s hard for me to think that the government isn’t using all of the powers at its command under the law in order to protect this country,” Kennedy said.

Verrilli attempted to stress the purpose of the anti-terrorism law.

“They are asking you to invalidate a vitally important national security statute based not on a concrete application,” but only speculation, he said.

But for one thing, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “there may be dozens of concrete applications affecting the plaintiffs in this case, but we will never know.”

And for another, Kagan said, the question at this point is not on the merits of the law. “The question is only: Can they make their argument to a court?”

The case is Clapper v. Amnesty International .

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The South Carolina GOP primary and the Nevada Democratic caucuses are next on Feb. 20. Get caught up on the race.
Past South Carolina GOP primary winners
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the first state in the South to vote, where he faces rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
We'll have half a million voters in South Carolina. I can shake a lot of hands, but I can't shake that many.
Sen. Marco Rubio, speaking to a group of reporters about his strategy to regain support after a poor performance in the last debate
Fact Checker
Sanders’s claim that Clinton objected to meeting with ‘our enemies’
Sanders said that Clinton was critical of Obama in 2008 for suggesting meeting with Iran. In fact, Clinton and Obama differed over whether to set preconditions, not about meeting with enemies. Once in office, Obama followed the course suggested by Clinton, abandoning an earlier position as unrealistic.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
The complicated upcoming voting schedule
Feb. 20

Democrats caucus in Nevada; Republicans hold a primary in South Carolina.

Feb. 23

Republicans caucus in Nevada.

Feb. 27

Democrats hold a primary in South Carolina.

Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.