Laird v. Tatum

Supreme Court of United States
408 U.S. 1 (1972)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Allegations of a subjective "chilling effect" on the exercise of First Amendment rights caused by the mere existence of a governmental data-gathering system do not present a justiciable controversy under Article III without a showing of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm.

Facts:

Following civil disorders in 1967, the U.S. Army was authorized to assist local authorities in quelling domestic violence.
To improve its preparedness, the Army established a data-gathering system to collect information about public activities with potential for civil disorder.
The Army collected information from public sources like news media, by having agents attend public meetings, and from civilian law enforcement agencies.
The collected data was reported to Army Intelligence headquarters, disseminated to Army posts, and stored in a computer data bank.
Respondents, Arlo Tatum and others, were individuals and organizations engaged in lawful, peaceful political activities who were subjects of the Army's surveillance.
Before the case reached the Supreme Court, the Army significantly reduced the scope of its surveillance activities and destroyed many of the collected records.

Procedural Posture:

Respondents brought a class action lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense and the Army in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the Army's surveillance of civilians violated their constitutional rights.
The District Court granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a justiciable claim for relief.
Respondents appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case for trial.
The petitioners (the government) successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a claim that the U.S. Army's domestic surveillance system has a 'chilling effect' on the exercise of First Amendment rights present a justiciable controversy when the plaintiffs allege no specific present or threatened injury resulting from the surveillance?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Burger

No. A claim based on a subjective 'chill' of First Amendment rights, stemming from the mere existence of a government data-gathering program, does not present a justiciable controversy without allegations of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm. The respondents have not alleged any unlawful action taken against them by the Army, nor have they shown they are in immediate danger of sustaining a direct injury. Unlike prior 'chilling effect' cases, the government action here is not regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory. The respondents' fear that the Army might misuse the information in the future is speculative and does not meet the Article III requirement for an actual case or controversy. To allow such a case would improperly cast the judiciary in the role of a continuing monitor over Executive Branch actions, a function reserved for Congress.

Dissenting - Justice Douglas

Yes. The Army's widespread surveillance of the civilian population is a profound departure from American constitutional tradition, which strictly limits military involvement in civilian affairs. The Constitution provides no authority for the armed services to conduct such surveillance. The massive and comprehensive nature of this surveillance, combined with the wide circulation of the collected data, creates a present and inhibiting deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights. This present chilling effect is a sufficient injury to establish standing, as individuals should not have to wait until they lose their job or are otherwise directly harmed to challenge such an unconstitutional usurpation of power.

Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes. The respondents have stated a justiciable claim upon which relief could be granted. The very operation of the Army's intelligence system, which is allegedly far broader than its mission requires, constitutes a present and impermissible burden on the respondents' First Amendment rights. The injury is the 'present inhibiting effect' on lawful behavior caused by the system's overbreadth. Since the respondents and their organizations have been subjects of the Army's surveillance reports, they have a sufficient personal stake in the controversy to establish standing and should be entitled to prove their case in court.

Analysis:

This decision significantly heightened the standing requirements for plaintiffs challenging government surveillance programs on First Amendment grounds. It established that a generalized, subjective fear of government action—a 'chill'—is not a sufficient injury in itself to create a justiciable case. The ruling requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a concrete, objective harm or a direct threat of such harm, making it much more difficult to bring pre-enforcement challenges against government information-gathering activities. Laird v. Tatum solidified the 'injury-in-fact' requirement in the context of surveillance and has been a major barrier for subsequent lawsuits challenging national security and law enforcement monitoring programs.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Laird v. Tatum (1972)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature