Supreme Court rejects Wilson/Plame suit

[sabra]

Source: Politico

The Supreme Court has refused to take up the lawsuit Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson brought against Bush administration over the exposure of Mrs. Wilson's employment at the CIA.

The justices denied certiorari without comment this morning. A district court judge also rejected the suit, as did the D.C. Circuit in a 2-1 ruling. The lower courts said individuals like the Wilsons could not sue government employees for alleged privacy violations because the law Congress wrote dealing with such violations, the Privacy Act, directs liability to the government.

Last month, the Obama Administration's representative before the high court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, urged the justices not to hear the case.

The exposure of Wilson's tie to the CIA led to a special counsel investigation of the leak, which in turn resulted in the indictment and conviction of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, on obstruction of justice charges. Libby's sentence was later commuted by President George W. Bush.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0609/Supreme_Court_rejects_WilsonPlame_suit.html

---

:-(

[pleah]

1. Bummer.

:(

[ixion]

2. so SCOTUS validates BushCo treason...

that's just ducky. :(

[Botany]

3. how many people died and how much money the outing of Plame cost ....

..... we will never know.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. Four votes gets cert. There weren't four votes.

The problem is with the statute, not the courts.

If a cause of action is specifically denied by Congress, it's hard for a Court to maintain that one still exists.

[grahamhgreen]

5. the Obama Administration's representative before the high court... urged the justices not to hear th

"the Obama Administration's representative before the high court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, urged the justices not to hear the case."

great

[mopinko]

13. so that some bushie can't sue them.

the solicitor general advocated following the law. that is great after the last president.

[lindisfarne]

6. Read the Brief - the court decision was on a narrow issue. They can still use Privacy Act

to pursue damage on privacy violations. The headline is unclear and misleading - the Supreme Court denied only claims based on special factors laid out in the "Bivens" case.


http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/0responses/2008-1043.resp.html
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Privacy Act's comprehensive statutory scheme governing disclosures of personal information, and the likelihood of judicial intrusion into sensitive intelligence and national security matters, constitute special factors that preclude creation of a cause of action for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for the alleged disclosure of petitioner's identity as an undercover Central Intelligence Agency operative.

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/0responses/2008-1043.resp.html
As the court of appeals explained, the Privacy Act established a comprehensive statutory scheme to regu late the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals in agency records. Pet. App. 15a. The Congress that enacted the Privacy Act was well aware of the constitutional privacy and First Amendment implications of collecting and disclosing such information in agency records, and it adopted de tailed remedial provisions that authorize monetary relief in suits against agencies while rejecting the alternative of civil actions against individual federal officials. See pp. 2-4, supra. Moreover, the court of appeals correctly recognized that petitioners' claims "are all claims alleg ing harm from the improper disclosure of information subject to the Privacy Act's protections," and, for that reason, petitioners have a potential remedy under the Act because they allege that Armitage disclosed to Novak information from agency records. Pet. App. 15a- 16a, 20a (emphasis added). Congress's decision to au thorize damages actions only against federal agencies for unlawful disclosures of Privacy Act information bal ances numerous factors, including the need for a civil remedy and the in terrorem effect of civil suits against individual government officials. And, because "Con gre
...
First, as the court of appeals explained, petitioners' underlying premise is incorrect. Petitioners themselves concede that Ms. Wilson has a possible damages claim under the Privacy Act. Pet. App. 20a; cf. C.A. App. 31 (alleging that Armitage acknowledged learning of Ms. Wilson's CIA employment from a State Department memorandum, which Armitage subsequently disclosed to Novak).ss is in a far better position than a court to evaluate the impact of a new species of litigation federal employees" and possesses "institutional competence in crafting appropriate relief," judicial deference is due to the balance that Congress has struck.

[Kali]

8. thankyou!

always more to it than simplified headlines. God, we are an ignorant, sound-bite sucking society.

[chicago legal pro]

9. The statute of limitations has run on a Privacy Act violation.

It is three years so any action would be barred by the statute of limitations.

[lindisfarne]

11. Well, that's Wilson/Plame's fault, if they didn't file within the time limit (maybe they did?)n/t

[mopinko]

14. welcome to du

always glad to see another chicagoan on the board. and we can always use someone to explain the law around here.
:toast:

[chicago legal pro]

17. Thanks. Glad to be here.

[Soylent Brice]

7. .

:argh:

[OKNancy]

10. Kick

[Frustratedlady]

12. Can they sue Cheney and Rove? Do something. The statute of limitations

ran out because they drug their feet for so long.

I can't believe there isn't something the Wilsons can do to get compensation for her exposure and loss of employment with the CIA.

[Magleetis]

15. Rule of law

:rofl:

[femrap]

16. No Justice

for Ms. Plame. Those who denied her Justice will experience the same. Karma never fails.