{"title":"莱尔德诉塔图姆案和监视案件的第三条诉讼时效","authors":"Jeffrey L. Vagle","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/gzpv5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Plaintiffs seeking to challenge government surveillance programs have faced long odds in federal courts, due mainly to a line of Supreme Court cases that have set a very high bar to Article III standing in these cases. The origins of this jurisprudence can be directly traced to Laird v. Tatum, a 1972 case where the Supreme Court considered the question of who could sue the government over a surveillance program, holding in a 5-4 decision that chilling effects arising “merely from the individual’s knowledge” of likely government surveillance did not constitute adequate injury to meet Article III standing requirements.","PeriodicalId":90761,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania journal of constitutional law","volume":"23 1","pages":"1055"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laird v. Tatum and Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey L. Vagle\",\"doi\":\"10.31228/osf.io/gzpv5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Plaintiffs seeking to challenge government surveillance programs have faced long odds in federal courts, due mainly to a line of Supreme Court cases that have set a very high bar to Article III standing in these cases. The origins of this jurisprudence can be directly traced to Laird v. Tatum, a 1972 case where the Supreme Court considered the question of who could sue the government over a surveillance program, holding in a 5-4 decision that chilling effects arising “merely from the individual’s knowledge” of likely government surveillance did not constitute adequate injury to meet Article III standing requirements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Pennsylvania journal of constitutional law\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"1055\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Pennsylvania journal of constitutional law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/gzpv5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania journal of constitutional law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/gzpv5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
原告试图挑战政府监控项目在联邦法院面临着很大的困难,主要是因为最高法院的一系列案件在这些案件中对第三条的地位设置了很高的门槛。这一判例的起源可以直接追溯到1972年的莱尔德诉塔图姆案(Laird v. Tatum)。在该案中,最高法院以5票对4票的裁决,审议了谁可以就一个监控项目起诉政府的问题,裁定“仅仅因为个人知道”可能的政府监控而产生的寒蝉效应,不足以构成足以满足第三条规定的伤害。
Laird v. Tatum and Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases
Plaintiffs seeking to challenge government surveillance programs have faced long odds in federal courts, due mainly to a line of Supreme Court cases that have set a very high bar to Article III standing in these cases. The origins of this jurisprudence can be directly traced to Laird v. Tatum, a 1972 case where the Supreme Court considered the question of who could sue the government over a surveillance program, holding in a 5-4 decision that chilling effects arising “merely from the individual’s knowledge” of likely government surveillance did not constitute adequate injury to meet Article III standing requirements.