53 Cited authorities

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 28,057 times 138 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't
523 U.S. 83 (1998) Cited 10,829 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits
Warth v. Seldin
422 U.S. 490 (1975) Cited 11,929 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"
Los Angeles v. Lyons
461 U.S. 95 (1983) Cited 7,556 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold
Rakas v. Illinois
439 U.S. 128 (1978) Cited 6,398 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that the determinative question is "whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place"
Allen v. Wright
468 U.S. 737 (1984) Cited 4,779 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that, even when plaintiffs allege "one of the most serious injuries recognized in our legal system," it's not justiciable where "the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury are far too weak for the chain as a whole to sustain respondents' standing"
Valley Forge College v. Americans United
454 U.S. 464 (1982) Cited 4,983 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees ... is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms"
Whitmore v. Arkansas
495 U.S. 149 (1990) Cited 2,866 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that a third party does not have "standing to challenge the validity of a death sentence imposed on a capital defendant who has elected to forgo his right of appeal"
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas
493 U.S. 215 (1990) Cited 2,377 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936))
Alderman v. United States
394 U.S. 165 (1968) Cited 2,317 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the victim of a warrantless search may object to the use of its fruits "not because he had any interest in the seized items as 'effects' protected by the Fourth Amendment, but because they were the fruits of an unauthorized search of his house, which is itself expressly protected by the Fourth Amendment"
Section 1801 - Definitions
50 U.S.C. § 1801 Cited 280 times 10 Legal Analyses
Defining "United States person" to be a "citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" or certain unincorporated associations or corporations with ties to the United States
Section 3504 - Litigation concerning sources of evidence
18 U.S.C. § 3504 Cited 217 times
Providing that when an aggrieved party alleges that "evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act [under the Omnibus Act] or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act, the opponent of the claim shall affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act"
Section 1806 - Use of information
50 U.S.C. § 1806 Cited 169 times 4 Legal Analyses
Allowing in camera , ex parte review of the legality of electronic surveillance under FISA Subchapter I if "the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States"

In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation

53 Cited authorities

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits

Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"

Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold

Holding that the determinative question is "whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place"

Holding that "the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees ... is not an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms"

Holding that a third party does not have "standing to challenge the validity of a death sentence imposed on a capital defendant who has elected to forgo his right of appeal"

Holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936))

Defining "United States person" to be a "citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" or certain unincorporated associations or corporations with ties to the United States

Allowing in camera , ex parte review of the legality of electronic surveillance under FISA Subchapter I if "the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States"