Supreme Court won't review telecom immunity for surveillance

WASHINGTON Tue Oct 9, 2012 6:49pm EDT

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a challenge to a 2008 federal law granting immunity to phone companies for helping the government eavesdrop on private phone conversations.

The decision is the latest in which the court has refused to review government surveillance practices adopted since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The case involved 33 lawsuits brought against the phone companies in 2006 after news reports that the government had conducted warrantless surveillance.

Phone customers alleged that AT&T Inc, Sprint Nextel Corp, Verizon Communications Inc and others violated federal and state law.

In reaction to the suits, Congress in 2008 passed Section 802 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which gave the Attorney General the power to grant legal immunity to anyone providing assistance to the intelligence community.

Then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey used that discretion to block the 33 suits, which were dismissed.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and others appealed, arguing that Section 802 violated the separation of powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution.

Last December, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected those arguments, finding the telephone companies immune.

Asking the Supreme Court to review that decision, the civil liberties groups 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.

The high court, without comment, declined on Tuesday to review the groups' challenge to the law.

Richard Wiebe, the lead lawyer for the customers, said the decision reflected the Supreme Court's growing reluctance to review challenges to the government's national security and intelligence-gathering procedures.

"It's one more example of the court stepping back from taking any role in enforcing the rule of law in the war on terror," Wiebe said.

He cited another surveillance case, brought by the ACLU against the National Security Agency, which the high court refused to review in 2008, along with other torture and detention cases.

"After 11 years and multiple congressional reports, public admissions and media coverage, the only place that this program hasn't been seriously considered is in the courts," Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in a statement.

The plaintiffs will continue to pursue a parallel case accusing the government and its officials of using a "dragnet" against ordinary citizens, which the 9th Circuit had allowed to proceed.

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

(Additional reporting by Jon 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
Comments (5)
usagadfly wrote:
Why haven’t the American People learned that the Government, its employees, friends, and others that they hand the Halloween candy out to are immune from the laws and Constitution of the country? No criminals get prosecuted who are on the side of the Empire. Have you not noticed? Laws, like taxes, “are for little people”.

The courts are a joke. The elections are a joke. The Constitution is a joke. Wake up!

Oct 09, 2012 7:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CrazyJ wrote:
This doesn’t surprise me at all. The supreme court, being the 5 to 4 conservative majority that it is, doesn’t want to touch this hot potato. The current court gives rights only to the ultra wealthy and their corporations, not the people. Seeing that the warrant-less wire tapping invoked by G.W. Bush is a conservative plan, that makes it a bad thing to strike down for the court. On the other hand, the low-information voters of the conservative constituency dislike the government spying on them – along with the rest of America. So the supreme court will anger one side or the other of their constituency. FOR warrant-less wire tapping = Against republican voters. Against warrant-less wire tapping = Against wealthy republicans/corporations. Lose/lose.

Oct 09, 2012 8:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dreamymiss wrote:
This is beyond ridiculous. If there are any libertarians on my ballot this year, I’m voting for them.

Oct 09, 2012 8:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.