Improving the FISA Court

A Better Secret Court, James G. Carr, New York Times, July 22, 2013

Tension between tech companies and NSA

Rift on display between tech industry, White House over NSA requests, Charles Cooper, CNET News, July 18, 2013  

This article includes the full-text of a petition from tech companies to President Barack Obama for greater transparency about demands for user data.

The Secrecy of the FISA Court: Competing Viewpoints

Surveillance court too secretive: Our view, Editorial Board, USA Today, July 18, 2013

FISA court 'works well as it is': Opposing view, Steven G. Bradbury, July 18, 2013

Standing to Challenge NSA Surveillance

Standing is a concept in American jurisprudence in which a party has the right to make a legal claim. In general, an individual or organization filing the suit must demonstrate that they have suffered an actual injury due to the conduct in question. The standing rule prevents, in many cases, lawsuits filed on behalf of others. The standing rule also prevents lawsuits by a party that has not suffered an actual injury, but the potential for injury exists. For instance, the fact that the National Security Agency is conducting a surveillance program, along with the mere possibility that a specific individual might be caught up in the dragnet, is potentially insufficient to meet the standing criteria without evidence that the specific individual actually was impacted by the surveillance. 

Before the United States Supreme Court this month is the case of Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, in which the plaintiffs seek prospective relief from the NSA surveillance program called "Stellar Wind". The following link is to a page maintained by the American Bar Association on the case.

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA