Laird v. Tatum 408 U.S. 1 (1972)

Author:Martin Shapiro
Pages:1557
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1557

Protesters against American involvement in the VIETNAM WAR sued to stop Army intelligence surveillance which they claimed had a CHILLING EFFECT on the exercise of their FIRST AMENDMENT rights. Chief Justice WARREN E. BURGER'S opinion for the Court, in a 5?4 decision, held that the case lacked RIPENESS because the protesters had presented no "claim of specific present objective ? or ? future harm" but only the fear that "the army may at some future date misuse the information in some way" that would harm them.

MARTIN SHAPIRO

(1986)

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP