Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Laird v. Tatum

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawArticle III standingJusticiabilityFirst AmendmentstandingjusticiabilityArticle IIIsubjective chill

Facts

Respondents challenged an Army intelligence system that collected information about public activities thought to have some potential for civil disorder, reported it to Army Intelligence headquarters, disseminated reports to Army posts, and stored information in a computer data bank. The principal sources were news media, publications in general circulation, reports by agents attending public meetings open to the public, and information from civilian law enforcement agencies. The Army asserted the system was developed after the 1967 Detroit disorders to improve contingency planning so that, if called upon to assist local authorities under federal law, it could respond effectively with minimal force. Before the District Court ruled, the Army had already significantly reduced the system and destroyed certain records, while respondents nonetheless alleged that the system's mere existence chilled their First Amendment activity.

Issue

Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over a claim that the mere existence of a governmental investigative and data-gathering system, allegedly broader than necessary for a valid governmental purpose, chills the exercise of First Amendment rights even though no specific action has been taken against the plaintiffs and no specific future action is shown to be threatened.

Rule

A private individual may invoke the judicial power to challenge executive or legislative action only by showing that he has sustained, or is immediately in danger of sustaining, a direct injury as the result of that action. Allegations of a subjective chill are not an adequate substitute for specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, Maya Ortiz learns through a newspaper investigation that a federal emergency-planning office keeps digital files on public protest marches, using news clips, public social-media posts, and reports from agents who attend rallies open to everyone. Maya says she now feels less willing to attend demonstrations, but she cannot identify any use of the file against her or any threatened government action directed at her.

If Maya files suit in federal court seeking an injunction on First Amendment grounds, what is the strongest argument against standing?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a private plaintiff must show direct injury already sustained or an immediate danger of sustaining such injury. Under the majority opinion, a subjective chill caused by knowledge that the government is gathering information is not enough by itself; there must be specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm. The Court did not hold that publicly sourced information always makes the conduct lawful on the merits, only that the alleged chill alone is insufficient for Article III.