Laird v. Tatum and Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases
Plaintiffs seeking to challenge government surveillance programs have faced long odds in federal courts, due mainly to a line of Supreme Court cases that have set a very high bar to Article III standing in these cases. The origins of this jurisprudence can be directly traced to Laird v. Tatum, a 1972 case where the Supreme Court considered the question of who could sue the government over a surveillance program, holding in a 5-4 decision 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.
Author

Are you an author of this paper? Check the Twitter handle we have for you is correct.

Jeffrey Vagle (add twitter)
Category

Law

Ask The Authors

Ask the authors of this paper a question or leave a comment.

Read it. Rate it.
#1. Which part of the paper did you read?

#2. The paper contains new data or analyses that is openly accessible?
#3. The conclusion is supported by the data and analyses?
#4. The conclusion is of scientific interest?
#5. The result is likely to lead to future research?

Github
User:
None (add)
Repo:
None (add)
Stargazers:
0
Forks:
0
Open Issues:
0
Network:
0
Subscribers:
0
Language:
None
Youtube
Link:
None (add)
Views:
0
Likes:
0
Dislikes:
0
Favorites:
0
Comments:
0
Other
Sample Sizes (N=):
Inserted:
Words Total:
Words Unique:
Source:
Abstract:
None
10/19/18 05:30PM
5,195
2,092
Tweets
Nobody has tweeted about this paper.
Images
Related