A handout photograph distributed by Syria's national news agency SANA on May 22,2013, show detained men, blindfolded and handcuffed, described by SANA as "terrorists fighters", a term commonly used to describe rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, in Qusair, near Homs.    SANA/Handout via Reuters (SYRIA - Tags: CONFLICT CIVIL UNREST TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY) ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS. THIS PICTURE IS DISTRIBUTED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more 

Photo

Devastated by Tornado

A huge tornado tears through an Oklahoma City suburb.  Slideshow 

Photo

Message of humility

A religious fraternity in Rio considers the election of Pope Francis, a confirmation of their beliefs in poverty and simplicity.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Supreme court won't review telecom immunity for surveillance

Related Topics

The white Apple iPhone 4 and iPad 2 are advertised in the window of an AT&T cellular store in Los Angeles August 31, 2011. REUTERS/Danny Moloshok

The white Apple iPhone 4 and iPad 2 are advertised in the window of an AT&T cellular store in Los Angeles August 31, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Danny Moloshok

WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 9, 2012 11:12am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to consider a challenge to a 2008 federal law granting immunity to AT&T Inc and other telecommunications companies for helping the government eavesdrop on customers' private phone conversations.

Section 802 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, bars a variety of civil actions against anyone providing assistance to the intelligence community.

Last December, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco let customers pursue lawsuits accusing the government of using a "dragnet" against ordinary citizens, but it rejected arguments in 33 lawsuits against phone companies such as AT&T, Sprint Nextel Corp and Verizon Communications Inc.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and others argued in an appeal to the Supreme Court on behalf of customers that Section 802 violated the separation of powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution.

They said the law allowed the executive branch to conduct "warrantless, suspicionless domestic surveillance" without fear of review by courts, and gave the Attorney General sole discretion to decide when eavesdropping was necessary.

The Obama Administration argued that lawsuits against phone companies should be dismissed to encourage cooperation in efforts to fight terrorism and help ensure that state secrets be kept under wraps.

Without comment, the high court refused to review the groups' challenge to the law.

The case is Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-1200.

(Reporting by Terry Baynes and Jonathan Stempel; editing by Claudia Parsons)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
kittenballs wrote:
1848. The government can hear what you say on the phone. They film you when you walk through the streets. They track what you look at on the internet.

Go buy a gun, you’re going to need it.

Oct 09, 2012 11:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rugratz2222 wrote:
time to polish those tin hats … the black helicopters are coming. Post a note on the back of your speed sign and look for applicable crop circles for further instructions.

Oct 09, 2012 1:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.