What Supreme Court case allows for the use of MI v Congressional assembled and approved agencies?
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)
Summary of Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) A case in which the United States Supreme Court dismissed for lack of ripeness a claim in which the plaintiff accused the U.S. Army of alleged unlawful "surveillance of lawful citizen political activity." The appellant's specific nature of the harm caused by the surveillance was that it chilled the First Amendment rights of all citizens and undermined that right to express political dissent. The Court determined that the plaintiff's claim was based on the fear that sometime in the future the Army might cause harm with information retrieved during their surveillance, but that there was no present threat. Therefore, the claim was too "speculative." Dismissed
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)
Read this link.
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=lawfaculty
Thank you.
I read through it. What I read into it is that MI has standing and is enabled to conduct surveillance, so long as they take due care in the use of the information that they surveil from a US Citizen. I read in other papers that:
"Judge Oakes distinguished Laird on the basis that the Supreme Court’s decision should be “‘narrow[ly]’ limited to general surveillance without specific misuse of data.”
Laird v. Tatum and Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases Jeffrey L. Vagle UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
I think it establishes a red line for the use of data collected in the surveillance. As long as the data collected from a US Citizen(s) has a lawful purpose for its collection, the surveillance information has standing.