Clapper v. Amnesty International USA

Background

Respondents are U.S. attorneys, journalists, and human-rights and advocacy organizations who say their work requires sensitive phone and email contacts with people abroad. Congress’s Section 702 (§1881a) lets the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence seek court approval to collect foreign intelligence by targeting non‑U.S. persons believed to be overseas. Respondents sued the Government the day the law passed, asking a court to declare §1881a unconstitutional and to block its use because they fear interception and have taken costly steps to avoid surveillance.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether these people have the right to sue in federal court. The majority held they do not. It found respondents’ fear rested on a speculative chain of events—targeting of foreign contacts, use of §1881a rather than another method, court approval, successful interception, and incidental capture of respondents’ messages. Because that chain is too uncertain, the Court said the threatened harms are not “certainly impending.” It also rejected the idea that respondents’ precautionary expenses can create a right to sue.

Real world impact

The ruling leaves §1881a in place and makes it harder for people to challenge broad foreign‑intelligence programs without clear evidence that their communications were intercepted. The opinion points litigants toward concrete events that would show injury, such as government disclosure or use of obtained material in legal proceedings. The Court noted statutory safeguards and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s role in reviewing targeting and minimization procedures.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer, joined by three colleagues, dissented. He argued the plaintiffs’ described communications are very likely to be intercepted under §1881a given past practices and practical incentives, and that some plaintiffs therefore do have standing to sue.