Amnesty International USA v. Clapper
667 F.3d 163
2d Cir.2011Background
- FAA of 2008 expands foreign surveillance of non-US persons outside the US under general procedures; FISC oversight focuses on general procedures, not individual targets.
- Plaintiffs are US persons who cannot be targeted, yet allege standing to challenge FAA and fear interception of communications.
- District court dismissed for lack of standing; panel reversed, holding standing due to self-incurred costs to avoid interception.
- Panel argues FAA expands interception risk and reduces FISC scrutiny; government accepted plaintiffs' factual submissions for standing.
- Dissenters contend standing is improper under Supreme Court precedent and would create a circuit split; en banc review denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the FAA | Amnesty: self-incurred costs show injury-in-fact | No actual or imminent interception; no standing | Panel majority: standing shown; en banc denial |
| FAA's effect on Fourth Amendment review | FAA broadens surveillance; procedures inadequately safeguard Fourth Amendment | FAA procedures comply with Fourth Amendment | Panel majority: FAA changes create meaningful standing considerations; merits not reached by en banc denial |
| Redressability of relief | Injunction would stop FAA interception and relieve costs | Even if FAA enjoined, alternatives remain for surveillance | Panel majority: redressability satisfied by relief against FAA; en banc denial |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing requires actual or imminent injury; not merely fear)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury in fact, causation, redressability; )
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (imminence requirement; not mere future risk)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (recognition of standing in special contexts; environmental-like considerations)
- Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) (chilling effect standing limitations; not to be extended broadly)
- Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (forbearance and standing in environmental context; limitations)
- Al-Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2007) (standing where surveillance not shown; speculative at best)
- United Presbyterian Church v. Reagan, 738 F.2d 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (rigorous standing inquiry for broad counterterrorism challenges)
- In re FISA Section 105B Directives, 551 F.3d 1004 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2008) (court reviewed targeting/minimization procedures; Fourth Amendment considerations)