X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Conference Call summarizes the roughly 15 percent of all nonpauper petitions that are the most likely candidates for certiorari. It is prepared by the law firms Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Howe & Russell, which together publish the Supreme Court weblog. Tom Goldstein, who is the head of Supreme Court litigation for Akin Gump, selects the petitions from the docket of nonpauper petitions. The firms then prepare the summaries of the cases. If either firm is involved in a case mentioned in this column, that will be disclosed.
Since its disclosure by The New York Times in late 2005, the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program has generated a host of constitutional questions, chief among them whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — whose procedures Congress established as the exclusive means for federal monitoring of electronic communications inside the United States — conflicts with the president’s wartime duty to defend the nation from potential attack. But in the first petition challenging the program to reach the Supreme Court, the justices will confront a more preliminary and technical question: whether individuals who feared being subject to NSA surveillance — and thus refrained from using certain forms of communication — have standing to challenge the program in the first place. The justices will consider whether to review that question at their private conference on Jan. 18, and they could issue a decision as soon as that afternoon. (The petition is No. 07-468, American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency.) Scarcely a month after the disclosure of the NSA program in the media, the ACLU brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan along with a host of scholars, journalists, attorneys, and other organizations whose work required them to communicate with individuals overseas thought to be likely targets of NSA surveillance. Moving for summary judgment, the plaintiffs submitted declarations from numerous criminal lawyers for accused terrorists, who, due to the possibility of government surveillance, asserted that they felt compelled to cease communicating by phone and e-mail with their clients and certain witnesses — or that such individuals were no longer willing to communicate with them. Invoking the state secrets doctrine, as it has with all other challenges to the NSA program, the federal government argued that disclosing whether the plaintiffs themselves had been subject to surveillance could harm national security. Though finding the privilege to have been properly invoked, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor nonetheless found — on the basis of information government officials had publicly disclosed — that the program violated not only FISA, but separation-of-powers principles and the First and Fourth amendments. Meanwhile, the administration announced a suspension of the program in January 2007 after receiving approval to conduct identical surveillance from a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Then, over the summer, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed the district court’s finding. Writing separately, Judges Alice Batchelder and Julia Smith found that the plaintiffs — whose injuries they deemed conjectural, self-imposed, and likely to persist even if the NSA was required to obtain warrants — lacked standing to challenge the program. In the petition for certiorari, ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer counters not only that the plaintiffs’ injuries were sufficient for standing purposes but also that President George W. Bush has continued to claim the authority to reauthorize the program whenever he deems it necessary. The petition contends that by refraining from using certain forms of communication with clients and sources — or by traveling overseas to engage in what otherwise would be routine conversations — the plaintiffs have suffered the type of “concrete” injury necessary to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements. The ACLU further maintains that, by simultaneously allowing the government to invoke the state secrets doctrine and requiring the plaintiffs to prove they themselves were subject to government surveillance, the lower courts in effect permitted the administration to “shield its surveillance activities from judicial review simply by refusing to disclose the identities of those whom it has monitored.” Recounting domestic spying on suspected communists and civil rights activists in the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s, the petition contends that previously unchecked government surveillance was precisely what prompted Congress to pass FISA in 1978. And despite the suspension of the program, the petition urges the Court to resolve the “live” question of whether Article II vests the president with inherent authority to engage in wartime surveillance outside congressional constraints. The brief in opposition, filed by Solicitor General Paul Clement, responds that the plaintiffs lack standing, under both the Constitution and the terms of FISA itself, and that the termination of the program renders the case moot, in any event. On the First Amendment claim, the government asserts that the 6th Circuit correctly followed the Court’s 1972 decision in Laird v. Tatum. Writing for a 5-4 majority, then-Chief Justice Warren Burger held that the mere existence of an Army data-gathering program was not sufficient to confer standing on a group of political activists alleging that its continuation would “chill” their exercise of protected speech. Clement also contends that the plaintiffs — who did not challenge the district court’s state secrets rulings — lack standing under FISA, which only authorizes suits by “aggrieved persons” whose communications were actually “subject” to electronic surveillance. To establish standing, Clement maintains, individuals would — at a minimum — have to establish that the government sought to use against them information gleaned from any warrantless surveillance. — Ben Winograd
Other cases up for review include the following: • 06-923, MetLife v. Glenn (6th Circuit) Whether an Employee Retirement Income Security Act plan administrator that both evaluates and pays claims operates under a conflict of interest that must be weighed on judicial review of benefit determinations. • 06-1184, Sprint Nextel Corp. v. National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (11th Circuit) Whether federal law pre-empts state and local laws prohibiting line-item charges on wireless bills. • 06-1249, Wyeth v. Levine (Supreme Court of Vermont) Whether federal law pre-empts state torts claims imposing liability on drug labeling that the Food and Drug Administration had previously approved. • 06-1269, United States, ex rel. Bly-Magee v. Premo (9th Circuit) Whether an audit performed by a state agency is “administrative” within the meaning of the “public disclosure” provision of the False Claims Act. • 06-1505, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (2nd Circuit) Whether, under Smith v. City of Jackson (2005), an employee alleging disparate impact under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act has the burden of persuasion in establishing “reasonable factors other than age.” [Disclosure: Howe & Russell represents the petitioner.] • 07-183, Gilmer v. Mississippi (Supreme Court of Mississippi) Whether Mississippi’s video voyeurism statute violates the First and 14th amendments insofar as it criminalizes the videotaping of an individual otherwise visible through an open door. • 07-418, Rosca v. United States (9th Circuit) Whether a “slight connection” standard for upholding a criminal conspiracy conviction against a sufficiency-of-evidence challenge violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. • 07-512, Pacific Bell Telephone Co. dba AT&T California v. LinkLine Communications (9th Circuit) Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a “price squeeze” claim if the defendant has no duty to deal. • 07-541, Alexandria City School Board v. A.K. (4th Circuit) Whether an Individualized Education Program under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act must list a single, specific school site at which the program will be provided. • 07-543, AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen (9th Circuit) Whether employers violate Title VII by not fully restoring service credit for pregnancy leaves taken before the 1978 passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. [Disclosure: Howe & Russell co-represents the respondent.] • 07-562, Altria Group v. Good (1st Circuit) Whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act pre-empts state law deceptive-practice claims in connection with the advertising of cigarettes as “light” or containing “lower tar and nicotine.” • 07-649, Chicago Title Insurance Corp. v. Magnuson (6th Circuit) Whether the principles underlying the three punitive-damages “guideposts” prevent a state from imposing punitive liability for certain conduct in the first instance. [Disclosure: Laurence Tribe, an Akin Gump consultant, represents the petitioner.] • 07-654, Jones v. Jennings (1st Circuit) Whether a police officer who broke a resisting suspect’s ankle during an arrest was entitled to qualified immunity against an excessive-force claim. • 07-663, AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan v. West (6th Circuit) Whether AK Steel’s failure to use a “whipsaw calculation” when determining the value of lump-sum distributions to early retirees caused a forfeiture of benefits in violation of ERISA.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.