Court dismisses challenge to domestic spying

Legality of program still a question
The appellate decision didn’t address the legality of the wiretapping program or absolve the administration of complying with a congressional subpoena seeking more information, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who is head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“There is a dark cloud over the White House’s warrantless wiretapping program, and a full response to the outstanding subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee by this Administration would be a good start to clearing the air,” Leahy said in a statement.

The Justice Department and the White House were pleased with the outcome.

“We have always believed that the District Court’s decision declaring the terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional was wrongly decided,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Department of Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the surveillance program was “a vital intelligence program that helped detect and prevent terrorist attacks. It was always subject to rigorous oversight and review.”

Case farthest to proceed
The ACLU pursued the lawsuit on behalf of other groups, including lawyers, journalists and scholars who asserted that the government monitoring prevented them from doing their jobs properly. The suit was filed in January 2006, a month after the program’s existence became known publicly.

Others have filed court challenges to the program, but none has gotten as far in the court system.

Shapiro said the ACLU is considering all its legal options, including asking for a full-court hearing in the 6th Circuit or asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider it. If the ACLU doesn’t pursue an appeal, the case would go back to the U.S. District Court in Michigan for dismissal.

A law professor who has closely followed the case thinks it will be dropped.

“The case is not moot because the government could continue the program at any time,” said Robert A. Sedler, a law professor at Wayne State University. “But because it’s not now in effect, the Supreme Court is not likely to hear it. It’s simply not an important case anymore.”

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

Senate set for health care debate Levin: Afghan forces key to success Newsweek: Why Cheney should run in 2012 NYT: White House intruders want to sell tale Oprah to visit White House for TV special NYT: S.C. rift highlights debate in GOP Life isn’t all glamor for Obama crashers Marines to renew focus on Taliban haven Can Obama retain Hispanic support? Senate report: Bin Laden was 'within grasp' Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: