4 ms·

Asking for a lawyer to comment: Rejecting standing was how the SCOTUS disposed of Proposition 8; how does it compare to find a way to have standing for this is

Asking for a lawyer to comment: Rejecting standing was how the SCOTUS disposed of Proposition 8; how does it compare to find a way to have standing for this issue? Yeah, I know it's something of an over-broad question, but I don't know enough to pare it down better.

dllthomas 13y ago
IANAL, but typically if you were the one harmed you would have standing. I'm not sure if there's anything particular to this area that would change that. In principle, violation of your privacy should be considered "harm." In practice, you need a lawyer to comment.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Also NAL, but the problem for these types of scenarios (and yes, I agree it's a problem) is that you have to prove specific harm. It's not enough that some jerk in the government might be able to violate your privacy with such-and-such a program as then the Supreme Court would have to overturn essentially the entire government. You'd have to demonstrate you were actually harmed by a program, which is going to be difficult for someone on the outside of these programs to ever prove.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Journalists could go for "chilling effect." The AP has already complained of it in practical terms.
MichaelSalib 13y ago
IANAL, but there's a been a trend in American jurisprudence to raise the standing barriers for effective litigation. Scott Lemiuex, a political scientist has written a bit on this point [1]; see also this balkinization post [2]. In general, the courts show extreme deference to the executive on matters of secrecy and national defense, so I'd expect they'd be disinclined to give anyone standing. [1] http://prospect.org/article/slow-motion-destruction-establishment-clause-enforcement http://prospect.org/article/slow-motion-destruction-establis... [2] http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/standing-and-executive-power-in.html http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/standing-and-executive-po...

dllthomas 13y ago

IANAL, but typically if you were the one harmed you would have standing. I'm not sure if there's anything particular to this area that would change that. In principle, violation of your privacy should be considered "harm." In practice, you need a lawyer to comment.

mpyne 13y ago
Also NAL, but the problem for these types of scenarios (and yes, I agree it's a problem) is that you have to prove specific harm. It's not enough that some jerk in the government might be able to violate your privacy with such-and-such a program as then the Supreme Court would have to overturn essentially the entire government. You'd have to demonstrate you were actually harmed by a program, which is going to be difficult for someone on the outside of these programs to ever prove.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Journalists could go for "chilling effect." The AP has already complained of it in practical terms.

MichaelSalib 13y ago

IANAL, but there's a been a trend in American jurisprudence to raise the standing barriers for effective litigation. Scott Lemiuex, a political scientist has written a bit on this point [1]; see also this balkinization post [2]. In general, the courts show extreme deference to the executive on matters of secrecy and national defense, so I'd expect they'd be disinclined to give anyone standing. [1] http://prospect.org/article/slow-motion-destruction-establishment-clause-enforcement http://prospect.org/article/slow-motion-destruction-establis... [2] http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/standing-and-executive-power-in.html http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/standing-and-executive-po...