Judicial Watch Brief: District Court Ruling in NSA Wiretapping Case 'Hasty and Injudicious' Judicial Watch Calls on U.S. Court of Appeals to Vacate R

3 November 2006

Judicial Watch, the conservative government watchdog group, announced today that it has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the National Security Agency wiretapping case (ACLU, et al., v. National Security Agency, et al., Appeal No. 06-2095/06-2140.) Judicial Watch, which previously uncovered a potential conflict of interest on the part of presiding Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, is calling upon the appellate court to vacate the District Court ruling. According to Judicial Watch's court filing, the ruling "overstepped the limits of judicial authority."

" The District Court -- attempted to decide...very important constitutional questions without the benefit of anything approaching a well-developed factual record, conflated the plantiffs' alleged First and Fourth Amendment injuries, and disregarded well-established precedent and ordinary rules of procedure," Judicial Watch argued in its amicus brief filed on October 24. "The result was not only the hasty and injudicious entry of a permanent injunction against an ongoing foreign intelligence gathering operation during a time of war, but also the patently flawed entry of summary judgment against the government. The District Court's ruling must, respectfully, be vacated."

Judicial Watch's principle argument relates to the issue of "standing." Given that none of the plaintiffs can demonstrate that any of their conversations were actually intercepted by the government, their injuries are merely speculative and cannot be considered by the court.

"The NSA -- National Security Agency -- has not disclosed any information about the identity of persons whose communications have been subject to the TSP -- surveillance program -- or the identity of persons whose communications will be subject to the TSP in the future...Without this essential information, the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that they have standing to assert their various claims arising under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)."

Given the lack of standing, Judicial Watch argued, the court's other rulings related to First Amendment and Fourth Amendment claims, and the alleged violation of separation of powers, were also erroneous.

"The lower court decision was just terrible. When a judge appears to have thrown out the law and the rules to reach a predetermined result, it undermines the public's faith in the judiciary." said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This important national security issue is too serious to have been handled in such an irresponsible manner by the courts. We hope the Sixth Circuit agrees."

To read a copy of Judicial Watch's Amicus Brief, please visit Judicial Watch's Internet site, http://www.judicialwatch.org.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

Source: usnewswire

All trademarks and copyrighted information contained herein are the property of their respective owners.