October Term 2012 · Docket 11-1025

Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge foreign surveillance laws?

Plaintiffs claim a substantial risk of surveillance. The government argues the threat is too speculative.

Official caption: Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
Latest argument session: 2012-10-29
Latest official Court activity: 2012-10-29
Latest verified event: Argued
Sources analyzed through: Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
2026-08-29 — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

Argument 1 · 2012-10-29

What happened at the argument
General Verrilli argued the question is whether the opposing sides have standing to challenge the law.
Mr. Jaffer argued plaintiffs have standing due to a substantial risk of acquisition.
Justice Scalia questioned whether the issue belongs to the judiciary under separated powers.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the government could invoke state secrets if standing exists.

Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 41-17 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 41-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-9 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 35-3 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 35-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 43-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 43-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 47-9

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests whether plaintiffs can sue over a law that allows foreign surveillance. The core dispute is whether a future, uncertain threat creates legal standing.