Attorneys, journalists, media, and legal and human rights organizations brought action against the Central Intelligence Agency, challenging the constitutionality of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In particular, they objected to a recent change to FISA, through the FISA Amendments Act, that shifted the party- monitoring compliance with the act's limitations from the judiciary to the executive branch, eliminating the power of the judiciary to review the surveillance procedures. The government argued that the plaintiff s lacked standing to bring the case to court. The plaintiff s argued that the recent change to FISA created a reasonable fear of future injury and that they had incurred costs to avoid that future injury. How do you think the court ruled in this case? Why?
Answer to relevant QuestionsThis is an unusual case involving an effort to obtain judicial review of a Veterans Administration (VA) publication that was issued in 1978. The publication concerned the processing of claims fi led by veterans who were ...Describe the various types of rule making. In April 1986 the FBI arrested Larry Dean Dusenbery in his home. After the FBI removed Dusenbery from the premises and placed him in custody, it obtained and executed a search war rant for his property. During the search, ...Sistrunk was involved in committing an armed robbery at a residence being used as a "stash house." This residence, however, was actually a police setup, organized by an anonymous informant as well as an undercover agent, ...The Bank of New York (BONY) sued the defendant insurance company, Fremont General Corporation, for intentional interference with contract and conversion. BONY sought to recover damages from the defendant's withdrawal of $14 ...
Post your question