{"id":991137,"date":"2021-11-09T18:59:27","date_gmt":"2021-11-09T23:59:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=991137"},"modified":"2021-11-09T18:59:31","modified_gmt":"2021-11-09T23:59:31","slug":"scotus-hears-oral-arguments-on-case-over-fbi-surveillance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-hears-oral-arguments-on-case-over-fbi-surveillance\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments On Case Over FBI Surveillance"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">18<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fscotus-hears-oral-arguments-on-case-over-fbi-surveillance%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=991137&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p class=\"p1\">On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a case involving a Muslim community and the FBI.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">As <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cbsnews.com\/news\/supreme-court-fbi-surveillance-muslim-community-california-state-secrets\/\">reported<\/a> by CBS News, \u201cThe Supreme Court on Monday grappled with whether to allow a case brought by&nbsp;three Muslim men against the FBI&nbsp;to proceed, with the men arguing the federal government targeted them and their Southern California community for surveillance based on their religion.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The arguments lasted over two hours, and the justices reportedly appeared most likely to put forward a narrow decision.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The outlet noted that a federal appeals court permitted the issues brought forward by the men to go forward, and the federal government wanted the Supreme Court to consider that ruling.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201cThe case, which was brought against the bureau and five agents in 2011, turns on whether a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) displaces the state-secrets privilege, which was invoked by the federal government in seeking to block the suit,\u201d CBS News reported.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Ballotpedia <a href=\"https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation_v._Fazaga#Background\">explained<\/a> the case:<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Three residents of Southern California who practice Islam filed a class action lawsuit in&nbsp;U.S. district court&nbsp;against the U.S. government, alleging that the&nbsp;Federal Bureau of Investigation&nbsp;(FBI) paid a confidential informant to surveil Muslims based solely on their religious identity for more than a year as part of a counterterrorism investigation, and that the program included unlawful searches and anti-Muslim discrimination. The U.S. government asserted the&nbsp;state-secrets privilege&nbsp;and moved to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed all but one of the plaintiffs\u2019 claims. On appeal, the&nbsp;9th Circuit&nbsp;affirmed&nbsp;in part and&nbsp;reversed&nbsp;in part the district court\u2019s judgment and&nbsp;remanded&nbsp;the case for further proceedings.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">The question posed is, \u201cWhether Section 1806(f) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve,&nbsp;in camera&nbsp;and&nbsp;ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">\u201cThe problem is that now the government takes a much stronger view of what state-secrets doctrine is,\u201d Justice Neil Gorsuch told Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, who was arguing for the FBI.<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Gorsuch also noted that there is a \u201cpretty good argument\u201d that the federal government was utilizing the state-secrets entitlement \u201cas a means to dismiss the case.\u201d&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\">Justice Stephen Breyer questioned, \u201dA plaintiff sues government officials and says: You have unlawfully been wiretapping or surveying, whatever. OK? The government goes back and says: Judge, we have a good reason for doing that wiretapping, and we don\u2019t want to tell people what it is. Doesn\u2019t the judge \u2014 shouldn\u2019t he still look to see if<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a case involving a Muslim community and the FBI.As reported by CBS News, \u201cThe Supreme Court on Monday grappled with whether to allow a case brought by\u00a0three Muslim men against the FBI\u00a0to proceed, with the men arguing the federal government targeted them and their Southern California community for surveillance based on their religion.\u201dThe arguments lasted over two hours, and the justices reportedly appeared most likely to put forward a narrow decision.\u00a0The outlet noted that a federal appeals court permitted the issues brought forward by the men to go forward, and the federal government wanted the Supreme Court to consider that ruling.\u00a0\u201cThe case, which was brought against the bureau and five agents in 2011, turns on whether a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) displaces the state-secrets privilege, which was invoked by the federal government in seeking to block the suit,\u201d CBS News reported.\u00a0Ballotpedia explained the case:Three residents of Southern California who practice Islam filed a class action lawsuit in\u00a0U.S. district court\u00a0against the U.S. government, alleging that the\u00a0Federal Bureau of Investigation\u00a0(FBI) paid a confidential informant to surveil Muslims based solely on their religious identity for more than a year as part of a counterterrorism investigation, and that the program included unlawful searches and anti-Muslim discrimination. The U.S. government asserted the\u00a0state-secrets privilege\u00a0and moved to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed all but one of the plaintiffs\u2019 claims. On appeal, the\u00a09th Circuit\u00a0affirmed\u00a0in part and\u00a0reversed\u00a0in part the district court\u2019s judgment and\u00a0remanded\u00a0the case for further proceedings.\u00a0The question posed is, \u201cWhether Section 1806(f) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve,\u00a0in camera\u00a0and\u00a0ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence.\u201d\u201cThe problem is that now the government takes a much stronger view of what state-secrets doctrine is,\u201d Justice Neil Gorsuch told Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, who was arguing for the FBI.Gorsuch also noted that there is a \u201cpretty good argument\u201d that the federal government was utilizing the state-secrets entitlement \u201cas a means to dismiss the case.\u201d\u00a0Justice Stephen Breyer questioned, \u201dA plaintiff sues government officials and says: You have unlawfully been wiretapping or surveying, whatever. OK? The government goes back and says: Judge, we have a good reason for doing that wiretapping, and we don\u2019t want to tell people what it is. Doesn\u2019t the judge \u2014 shouldn\u2019t he still look to see if they\u2019re right?\u201d\u201cMy point,\u201d he later said, \u201cis there should be a way to look at the information for the court and decide what to do.\u201dAccording to Ballotpedia, \u201cThe Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court\u2019s yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.\u201dThe Supreme Court heard another case on Tuesday regarding the execution of an inmate.\u00a0As reported by The Daily Wire in September, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the execution of a man on death row because his desire to have his pastor lay hands on him and say prayers as he died was not fulfilled.The Supreme Court\u2019s\u00a0order\u00a0said at the time:\u00a0The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The Clerk is directed to establish a briefing schedule that will allow the case to be argued in October or November 2021.\u00a0The Daily Wire is one of America\u2019s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":95,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-991137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/991137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/95"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=991137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/991137\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=991137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=991137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=991137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}