http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/20/eff-defeats-motion-to-dismiss/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:08:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/20/eff-defeats-motion-to-dismiss/comment-page-1/#comment-735 Info/Law » Federal Court Strikes Down NSA Wiretapping Program Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:01:29 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/20/eff-defeats-motion-to-dismiss/#comment-735 [...] On state secrets, the judge here (Anna Diggs Taylor) followed the lead of Judge Vaughn Walker in the EFF litigation against AT&T. As discussed previously by both Derek and yours truly, in that case the government sought dismissal under the state secrets privilege and Judge Walker held that the government had already revealed enough about the program to allow EFF to make its claims without relying on any classified information. Here, Judge Taylor reached the same conclusion (but she did dismiss another claim about the NSA’s parallel data mining program because the Administration has said much less about it so the state secrets privilege applied). There is also a very important ruling that the plaintiffs have demonstrated enough injury from the possibility that they were surveilled in order to have standing to sue (I will need to read that analysis more carefully before commenting on it). [...] [...] On state secrets, the judge here (Anna Diggs Taylor) followed the lead of Judge Vaughn Walker in the EFF litigation against AT&T. As discussed previously by both Derek and yours truly, in that case the government sought dismissal under the state secrets privilege and Judge Walker held that the government had already revealed enough about the program to allow EFF to make its claims without relying on any classified information. Here, Judge Taylor reached the same conclusion (but she did dismiss another claim about the NSA’s parallel data mining program because the Administration has said much less about it so the state secrets privilege applied). There is also a very important ruling that the plaintiffs have demonstrated enough injury from the possibility that they were surveilled in order to have standing to sue (I will need to read that analysis more carefully before commenting on it). [...]

]]>