I don't know the entire process well, but wouldn't that be something that you'd presumably file in Federal District court and start there? Once/if it hits the Supreme Court, I don't think the government could really ignore it could they?
As an example, let's look at the warrantless wiretapping that AT&T did on the behest of the NSA[0]. The EFF filed two cases in response that claimed it was a blatant violation of the 4th amendment: Jewel v. NSA[1] & Hepting v. AT&T[2], against the government & AT&T, respectively.
Here's the latest news on Jewel v. NSA:
> In April, the Obama administration moved to dismiss Jewel, claiming that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets,” and that they were immune from suit.
According to the documents on the EFF site, they appealed the ruling, but there hasn't been anything posted about the results of that.
How about the case against AT&T?
> In June of 2009, a federal judge dismissed Hepting and dozens of other lawsuits against telecoms, ruling that the companies had immunity from liability under the controversial FISA Amendments Act (FISAAA), which was enacted in response to our court victories in Hepting. Signed by President Bush in 2008, the FISAAA allows the Attorney General to require the dismissal of the lawsuits over the telecoms' participation in the warrantless surveillance program if the government secretly certifies to the court that the surveillance did not occur, was legal, or was authorized by the president -- certification that was filed in September of 2008. EFF is planning to appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, primarily arguing that FISAAA is unconstitutional in granting to the president broad discretion to block the courts from considering the core constitutional privacy claims of millions of Americans.
>> In April, the Obama administration moved to dismiss Jewel, claiming that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets,” and that they were immune from suit.
Hardly surprising, since he voted to immunize them while in the Senate.
I see how they could evoke state secrets for wiretapping and such, but there's no secret here except that they screwed up and seized something they shouldn't have. I don't know how this specifically would be as easy to dismiss, but lawyers and the government always can find new tricks I'm sure.
EDIT: Sorry, meant to reply to w1ntermute, not tibbon.
The so-called "Constitution-Free Zone": the Constitution allows for warrantless searches at borders for the purposes of customs enforcement. But our government has conveniently decided that the "border" is now defined as any land within 100 miles of a physical border.
Guess what? 2/3 of the American population lives within that definition of a border. Guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure died long ago.
