Connection lost
Server error
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Attorneys and journalists challenged a government surveillance law, claiming it chilled their communications. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding their fear of future surveillance was too speculative to establish the “injury-in-fact” required for standing.
Legal Significance: The case significantly heightened the standard for Article III standing in national security cases, requiring a “certainly impending” injury and rejecting standing based on self-incurred costs to mitigate a speculative future harm.
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondents, a group of attorneys, journalists, and human rights organizations, brought a pre-enforcement facial challenge to § 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the government to surveil non-U.S. persons located abroad. Respondents alleged their work required them to engage in sensitive electronic communications with foreign individuals who were likely targets of § 702 surveillance. They asserted two theories of Article III standing. First, they claimed a future injury, arguing there was an objectively reasonable likelihood their communications would be intercepted. Second, they claimed a present injury, contending that the substantial risk of surveillance forced them to undertake costly and burdensome measures to protect confidentiality, such as traveling for in-person meetings. The government argued that these claims were too speculative to confer standing. The District Court dismissed for lack of standing, but the Second Circuit reversed, finding both theories sufficient. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the standing question.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Do plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge a government surveillance statute based on a fear of future interception and costs incurred to mitigate that fear, without showing that the threatened injury is “certainly impending”?
No. The respondents lack Article III standing because their asserted future injury Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Do plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge a government surveillance statute based on a fear of future interception and costs incurred to mitigate that fear, without showing that the threatened injury is “certainly impending”?
Conclusion
This decision establishes a formidable barrier for plaintiffs seeking pre-enforcement review of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ve
Legal Rule
To establish Article III standing for a threatened future injury, a plaintiff Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repre
Legal Analysis
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito, held that respondents' theory Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Plaintiffs challenging FISA’s surveillance of foreign persons lack standing because the