Can the clock run out on a lawsuit before you even have the evidence to file it? That is the core question facing the U.S. Supreme Court in a legal battle that could redefine how Americans hold the government accountable for secret surveillance.
The Liberty Justice Center, a public interest law firm, filed a brief this week urging the high court to hear Page v. Comey. The case centers on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page and his failed attempt to sue the FBI for surveillance abuse under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
At issue isn’t just whether the FBI erred—the Department of Justice has already admitted to “at least 17 significant errors or omissions” in the warrants used to spy on Page. Instead, the legal fight is about time.
READ: Missouri Congressman Urges UFO Disclosures, Whistleblower Protection
The “Rumor Mill” Standard
A lower court previously tossed out Page’s lawsuit, ruling that he waited too long to file. The court argued the statute of limitations began years earlier, when Page read anonymously sourced news reports suggesting he was a target of government monitoring.
Critics say this ruling creates a “Catch-22” for victims of unconstitutional spying: file a lawsuit based on rumors and risk dismissal for lack of evidence, or wait for declassified proof and risk having the case thrown out for being too late.
The Liberty Justice Center argues that the current standard allows federal agencies to run out the clock by keeping misconduct classified until the deadline to sue has passed.
READ: US Tightens Grip: 7th Tanker Seized In Trump’s Caribbean ‘Quarantine’
“The government is in possession of this information and exerts extensive control over where and when it is made public,” said Reilly Stephens, Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center. “To expect individual citizens to divine from anonymously sourced news articles facts the government is actively working to keep secret will ultimately deprive citizens of their day in court.”
Closing the Accountability Gap
The brief contends that the statute of limitations should not begin until the government releases concrete evidence of the surveillance. Without this shift, advocates warn that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure becomes toothless in the face of classified operations.
This isn’t the first time the Liberty Justice Center has challenged surveillance overreach. The group previously sued the Illinois State Police in Scholl v. ISP regarding the monitoring of citizens on public roadways.
In Page v. Comey, the stakes are federal.
If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the lower court’s ruling stands, potentially cementing a legal reality where media speculation starts the clock on your rights, even while the facts remain under government lock and key.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
