<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>CLP Blog</provider_name><provider_url>https://clpblog.citizen.org</provider_url><author_name>Scott Michelman</author_name><title>Narrow Supreme Court standing decision in surveillance case - CLP Blog</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="xneGebQ6Ij"&gt;&lt;a href="https://clpblog.citizen.org/narrow-supreme-court-standing-decision-in-surveillance-case/"&gt;Narrow Supreme Court standing decision in surveillance case&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://clpblog.citizen.org/narrow-supreme-court-standing-decision-in-surveillance-case/embed/#?secret=xneGebQ6Ij" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;Narrow Supreme Court standing decision in surveillance case&#x201D; &#x2014; CLP Blog" data-secret="xneGebQ6Ij" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(c,l){"use strict";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=0;o&lt;n.length;o++)n[o].style.display="none";for(o=0;o&lt;i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message){if(1e3&lt;(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s&lt;200)s=200;r.height=s}if("link"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement("a"),a=l.createElement("a"),s.href=r.getAttribute("src"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener("message",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",t,!1),c.addEventListener("load",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf("MSIE 10"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(/Trident.*rv:11\./),i=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),n=0;n&lt;i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute("data-secret")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+="#?secret="+r,t.setAttribute("data-secret",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute("security"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:r},"*")}}}}(window,document);
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><description>In a 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court held that lawyers, journalists and human-rights workers whose work requires that they communicate with individuals abroad whose communications the federal government is likely to target under its broad new surveillance authority lack standing to challenge the statute granting the government that broad authority. The majority dismisses as [...]</description></oembed>
