6 ms·

Justice Dept. urges Supreme Court to deny certiorari in WhatsApp vs. NSO Group [pdf]

54 points by stefan_ 4y ago

KingLancelot 4y ago
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    So, you are saying NSO should be immune? Because NSO is appealing a decision that they do not have foreign government immunity, and DoJ is asking the Supreme Court not to take the case.
- wnoise 4y ago
  The DOJ brief explicitly says that the NSO group cannot claim this immunity, and that the lower court ruled correctly -- so no need for SCOTUS to take the case.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  The DOJ is asking the SC to not take cert, and leave the court of appeals' ruling in place. That ruling says that NSO does not have immunity and therefore can be sued and held liable for its actions, because it is not a foreign government. What exactly does that show?
- stefan_ 4y ago
  In case you missed it, this is a bad thing for NSO.
- ubermonkey 4y ago
  My read here is that the Federal government is supporting the idea that NSO is not immune from suit, so, uh, I think you may have missed something.
toomanyrichies 4y ago
For those who were curious about the legal term "certiorari" (as I was): > "Certiorari is generally associated with the writ that the Supreme Court of the United States issues to review a lower court's judgment. A case cannot, as a matter of right, be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, a party seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court from a lower court decision must file a writ of certiorari. > In the Supreme Court, if four Justices agree to review the case, then the Court will hear the case. This is referred to as "granting certiorari," often abbreviated as "cert." If four Justices do not agree to review the case, the Court will not hear the case. This is defined as denying certiorari." 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari#:~:text=In%20the%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20if,is%20defined%20as%20denying%20certiorari https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari#:~:text=In%20the%....
- ubermonkey 4y ago
  My sister tells a tale of a groan-inducing joke wherein folks at law school would offer a mint, and then, at the last minute, snap their hand closed and say "CERT DENIED."
  - Cyph0n 4y ago
    Sounds like that could also work as a TLS joke.
  - batmansmom1 4y ago
    I dont get it what does a mint have to do with a cert?
    - trynewideas 4y ago
      "Certs" is a brand of breath mint.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certs
      - babyshake 4y ago
        "Let that sink in..."
colechristensen 4y ago
The decision that the Justice department is supporting is that NSO is not immune to legal proceedings. Presumably everyone wants this to continue being the case and would agree that the Supreme Court doesn’t need to revisit this decision. Unless there’s some hidden reason that the government doesn’t want the consequences of the Supreme Court agreeing and having additional effects… Conspiracy folks who think the Justice department is fighting for NSO need to actually read the linked article
O__________O 4y ago
In a filing to the Supreme Court, NSO said it should be recognized as a foreign government agent and therefore be entitled to immunity under US law limiting lawsuits against foreign countries. Curious, did a government step forward to agree with NSO that it should be recognized as a foreign government agent? If so, is this publicly documented, and more importantly, is it material to the case?
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  The opposite.
- cogman10 4y ago
  As the DoJ points out, the NSO needs to argue which government they represent (and they have not) which makes it silly to claim immunity. The NSO is basically saying "just trust us, we represent a government or two".
- Seam0nkey 4y ago
  The second half of paragraph 2 on page 7 of the brief: >And no foreign state has supported NSO’s claim to immunity; indeed, NSO has not even identified the states for which it claims to have acted as an agent.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Maybe you should say the quiet part out loud, instead of having us guess at what you mean by the innuendo.
      - mwerd 4y ago
        Israel, where NSO group is headquartered, surely.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
_8j50 4y ago
As this filing points out, NSO is not incorporated in the US. What is the purpose of the suit? How can the plantiff or the courts collect the fees? Would it just mean NSO will not operate in the US?
- xbar 4y ago
  Entities incorporated elsewhere can receive a judgement against them.
  - brookst 4y ago
    Yes, and entities incorporated elsewhere can have assets in the US, including bank accounts. In general companies have liability in every jurisdiction in which they operate, not just where they're incorporated.
    - _8j50 4y ago
      I don't think NSO would have office buildings or other physical assets in the US that can't be moved elsewhere.
      - olliej 4y ago
        The fact that they're fighting the suit to this extent implies that that is not the case.
      - brookst 4y ago
        That might be true, but at that point you're fleeing the country to avoid the justice system. As a US citizen/resident, I would be very skeptical of any instructions to do that. Even as a US bank I think legal would have to look at it to see if there is liability in transferring substantial assets out of the country. Yes, they may well be able to sneak out at night. But that's not how legitimate businesses operate, and it might change the process and outcome in the next country where litigation appears. If NSO moves and abandons assets in the US to escape liability, what happens when similar actions are brought in Germany or the UK or wherever? Presumably plaintiffs would insist on accounts being frozen immediately given NSO's absconding from the US. Fleeing may help owners extract maximum value from the company before it collapses, but it will not serve the purposes of continuing to operate a legitimate for-profit company.
shadowgovt 4y ago
In general, the Supreme Court is loathe to review a lower court ruling unless there was either an obvious constitutional violation or rulings from different circuits have resulted in ambiguity at the national level on how law should be interpreted. Otherwise, they defer to the lower courts because that's why we have lower courts.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  That may be true if the Supreme Court had not already shown political bias, and in this case I believe the conservative majority would be more likely to allow it and rule in favor of NSO Group.
encryptluks2 4y ago
[flagged]
- xbar 4y ago
  It is possible that politicians speak openly about Israeli influence but that news and media outlets have bias against reporting about complaints against Israel. Also, as far as I am aware, Russians are somewhat less organized in their defense of their national identity and ethnic heritage. For example, I am not aware of any notable US-based anti-Russian-bias or Russian-hate-prevention organizations.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

54 points by stefan_ 4y ago

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  So, you are saying NSO should be immune? Because NSO is appealing a decision that they do not have foreign government immunity, and DoJ is asking the Supreme Court not to take the case.
wnoise 4y ago
The DOJ brief explicitly says that the NSO group cannot claim this immunity, and that the lower court ruled correctly -- so no need for SCOTUS to take the case.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
joshuamorton 4y ago
The DOJ is asking the SC to not take cert, and leave the court of appeals' ruling in place. That ruling says that NSO does not have immunity and therefore can be sued and held liable for its actions, because it is not a foreign government. What exactly does that show?
stefan_ 4y ago
In case you missed it, this is a bad thing for NSO.
ubermonkey 4y ago
My read here is that the Federal government is supporting the idea that NSO is not immune from suit, so, uh, I think you may have missed something.

For those who were curious about the legal term "certiorari" (as I was): > "Certiorari is generally associated with the writ that the Supreme Court of the United States issues to review a lower court's judgment. A case cannot, as a matter of right, be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, a party seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court from a lower court decision must file a writ of certiorari. > In the Supreme Court, if four Justices agree to review the case, then the Court will hear the case. This is referred to as "granting certiorari," often abbreviated as "cert." If four Justices do not agree to review the case, the Court will not hear the case. This is defined as denying certiorari." 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari#:~:text=In%20the%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20if,is%20defined%20as%20denying%20certiorari https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari#:~:text=In%20the%....

ubermonkey 4y ago
My sister tells a tale of a groan-inducing joke wherein folks at law school would offer a mint, and then, at the last minute, snap their hand closed and say "CERT DENIED."
- Cyph0n 4y ago
  Sounds like that could also work as a TLS joke.
- batmansmom1 4y ago
  I dont get it what does a mint have to do with a cert?
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    "Certs" is a brand of breath mint.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certs
    - babyshake 4y ago
      "Let that sink in..."

colechristensen 4y ago

The decision that the Justice department is supporting is that NSO is not immune to legal proceedings. Presumably everyone wants this to continue being the case and would agree that the Supreme Court doesn’t need to revisit this decision. Unless there’s some hidden reason that the government doesn’t want the consequences of the Supreme Court agreeing and having additional effects… Conspiracy folks who think the Justice department is fighting for NSO need to actually read the linked article

O__________O 4y ago

In a filing to the Supreme Court, NSO said it should be recognized as a foreign government agent and therefore be entitled to immunity under US law limiting lawsuits against foreign countries. Curious, did a government step forward to agree with NSO that it should be recognized as a foreign government agent? If so, is this publicly documented, and more importantly, is it material to the case?

KptMarchewa 4y ago
The opposite.
cogman10 4y ago
As the DoJ points out, the NSO needs to argue which government they represent (and they have not) which makes it silly to claim immunity. The NSO is basically saying "just trust us, we represent a government or two".
Seam0nkey 4y ago
The second half of paragraph 2 on page 7 of the brief: >And no foreign state has supported NSO’s claim to immunity; indeed, NSO has not even identified the states for which it claims to have acted as an agent.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Maybe you should say the quiet part out loud, instead of having us guess at what you mean by the innuendo.
    - mwerd 4y ago
      Israel, where NSO group is headquartered, surely.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

_8j50 4y ago

As this filing points out, NSO is not incorporated in the US. What is the purpose of the suit? How can the plantiff or the courts collect the fees? Would it just mean NSO will not operate in the US?

xbar 4y ago
Entities incorporated elsewhere can receive a judgement against them.
- brookst 4y ago
  Yes, and entities incorporated elsewhere can have assets in the US, including bank accounts. In general companies have liability in every jurisdiction in which they operate, not just where they're incorporated.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    I don't think NSO would have office buildings or other physical assets in the US that can't be moved elsewhere.
    - olliej 4y ago
      The fact that they're fighting the suit to this extent implies that that is not the case.
    - brookst 4y ago
      That might be true, but at that point you're fleeing the country to avoid the justice system. As a US citizen/resident, I would be very skeptical of any instructions to do that. Even as a US bank I think legal would have to look at it to see if there is liability in transferring substantial assets out of the country. Yes, they may well be able to sneak out at night. But that's not how legitimate businesses operate, and it might change the process and outcome in the next country where litigation appears. If NSO moves and abandons assets in the US to escape liability, what happens when similar actions are brought in Germany or the UK or wherever? Presumably plaintiffs would insist on accounts being frozen immediately given NSO's absconding from the US. Fleeing may help owners extract maximum value from the company before it collapses, but it will not serve the purposes of continuing to operate a legitimate for-profit company.

shadowgovt 4y ago

In general, the Supreme Court is loathe to review a lower court ruling unless there was either an obvious constitutional violation or rulings from different circuits have resulted in ambiguity at the national level on how law should be interpreted. Otherwise, they defer to the lower courts because that's why we have lower courts.

encryptluks2 4y ago
That may be true if the Supreme Court had not already shown political bias, and in this case I believe the conservative majority would be more likely to allow it and rule in favor of NSO Group.

encryptluks2 4y ago

[flagged]

xbar 4y ago
It is possible that politicians speak openly about Israeli influence but that news and media outlets have bias against reporting about complaints against Israel. Also, as far as I am aware, Russians are somewhat less organized in their defense of their national identity and ethnic heritage. For example, I am not aware of any notable US-based anti-Russian-bias or Russian-hate-prevention organizations.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]