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.
Surveillance, Standing, Federal Courts
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law
Vagle, Jeffrey L., "Laird v. Tatum and Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases" (2016). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law. 1649.
Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Defense and Security Studies Commons, Law and Society Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Policy History, Theory, and Methods Commons, Privacy Law Commons, Public Policy Commons
18 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1055 (2016).