## Facts

- Elliott J. Schuchardt sued federal officials, alleging an NSA surveillance program conducted under FISA § 702 (“PRISM”) violated the Fourth Amendment.
- He alleged PRISM enabled the NSA to obtain access to major internet providers’ systems and to intercept, monitor, and store the contents of “all or substantially all” emails of U.S. citizens.
- Schuchardt alleged he used services offered by providers identified in public reporting about PRISM and, as a result, his own communications were seized and stored.
- Public descriptions also characterized PRISM as targeted collection based on specific identifiers (“selectors”) associated with non-U.S. persons abroad, not indiscriminate domestic bulk interception.
- Schuchardt sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether, on a facial Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the second amended complaint plausibly alleged an injury in fact personal to Schuchardt sufficient for Article III standing to pursue Fourth Amendment claims challenging PRISM.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded.
- The court held that, at least on a facial attack, Schuchardt plausibly alleged an injury in fact personal to him by alleging his communications were seized as part of an ongoing dragnet.
- The court distinguished pleading-stage plausibility from proof of jurisdictional facts and noted the government could pursue a factual jurisdictional challenge on remand.
- The court directed that any standing-related discovery be limited and closely supervised.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability; injury in fact must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.
- When the government brings a facial jurisdictional challenge under Rule 12(b)(1), courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true, draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and do not resolve factual disputes.
- In a facial standing inquiry, plausibility applies: the complaint must allege facts permitting a plausible inference that the plaintiff personally suffered the asserted injury.
- A claim of speculative future surveillance based on contingent events may fail standing, but allegations of ongoing or past acquisition of the plaintiff’s communications may satisfy injury in fact at the pleading stage.
- Courts may permit limited jurisdictional discovery if the defendant later raises a factual attack on standing, subject to judicial control, including in national-security contexts.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that, given the government’s facial jurisdictional challenge, Schuchardt’s detailed allegations plausibly supported a personal injury from alleged bulk interception under PRISM, warranting vacatur of the dismissal and a remand for potential factual testing of standing under closely supervised proceedings.


Schuchardt v. President of the U.S., 839 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2016)