Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
GPTKB entity
Statements (73)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
October 29, 2012
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Relevant to discussions on civil liberties.
Implications for future surveillance cases. |
| gptkbp:case_judicial_precedent_details |
Details of judicial precedent.
|
| gptkbp:case_judicial_significance_details |
Details of judicial significance.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_analysis_details |
Details of the legal analysis.
|
| gptkbp:case_legal_debate_details |
Details of the legal debate.
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
11-1025
Originated in the U. S. District Court. |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Reversed lower court's decision.
Details of the judicial outcome. Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed. Affected future surveillance legislation. Majority opinion emphasized standing. Plaintiffs did not have standing. |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Significance in judicial history.
Highlighted tensions between security and privacy. Details of legal significance. Significance in legal discussions. |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil rights case.
Focused on surveillance practices. |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Influenced privacy law discussions.
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
February 26, 2013 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
Dissent argued for broader standing. |
| gptkbp:eye_color |
Oral arguments.
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced future cases regarding surveillance and privacy.
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Amnesty_International_USA
Clapper |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
568 U. S. 398 (2013)
|
| gptkbp:judged_by |
Affirmed lower court's ruling.
Judgment in favor of the government. |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Supreme Court review.
Judicial review by the Supreme Court. Outcome of judicial review. |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Details of the legal context.
Context of national security. National security and civil liberties. |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Details of the legal framework.
Details of judicial impact. Framework for evaluating standing. Impact on judicial interpretations of standing. Outcome of the Supreme Court ruling. Supreme Court ruling. |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Debate over privacy rights.
Standing to sue Standing in national security cases. |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Dismissal of the case.
Legal outcome favored the government. |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_(ACLU)
Analysis of legal standing. Examined implications of FISA. |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:USA_PATRIOT_Act
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
The Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Limits on standing in national security cases.
Precedent for future cases. Set a precedent for future standing cases. |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito
|
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Controversial among civil rights advocates.
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:United_States_v._Carpenter
gptkb:Smith_v._Maryland gptkb:Katz_v._United_States gptkb:ACLU_v._Clapper gptkb:United_States_v._Jones |
| gptkbp:related_to |
gptkb:Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
|
| gptkbp:resolution |
Supreme Court decision.
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Addressed issues of government surveillance.
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_v._NSA
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
5
|