On February 26, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, which clarified the standard to establish Article III standing for claims based on impending or future harm. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., held that plaintiffs must demonstrate harm that is certainly impending, not speculative, to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of standing. The Court also held that plaintiffs may not manufacture standing by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending. The decision has important implications for suits in federal court relating to Internet privacy and data security. Plaintiffs in such cases often rely on fear of future harmthat the defendant's conduct has left them susceptible to identity theft or future privacy breaches, for exampleor that they have incurred costs in order to avoid future harm. Federal courts will lack jurisdiction over such claims unless plaintiffs can show that the harm or injury that they allege is certainly impending, rather than merely possible. Issue Before the Court
The plaintiffs in Clapper were a group of attorneys and nonprofit organizations who alleged that their work requires them to engage in sensitive and sometimes privileged telephone and e-mail communications with people outside the United States. They sought to challenge the constitutionality of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1881a (Section 1881a). That statute allows the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, with the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to authorize the surveillance...
