In Laird v. Tatum, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the Department of Defense for allegedly conducting unlawful domestic surveillance activities. The case was brought forward by a group of citizens who claimed their First Amendment rights were being violated due to fear and intimidation caused by the military's data collection on lawful civilian political activity. However, the court found no direct injury or specific threat of harm from these alleged actions; rather, they deemed it as subjective chill - an individual's own subjective fear and resulting self-censorship which is not sufficient to constitute an injury for legal action under Article III of Constitution. Therefore, without showing actual harm or immediate danger thereof, there could be no judicial intervention based on speculation about potential future harms.

In the dissenting opinion for Laird v. Tatum, Justice Douglas argued that the surveillance activities of the U.S. Army on civilian political activity posed a significant threat to First Amendment rights and should be subject to judicial review. He emphasized that even if no direct harm had been inflicted upon citizens, there was an inherent chilling effect on free speech caused by such surveillance practices which could not be ignored or dismissed lightly. Furthermore, he contended that it was inappropriate for courts to defer entirely to executive judgment in matters involving constitutional freedoms as this would undermine their role as protectors of individual liberties against government overreach. In his view, the majority's decision failed to adequately address these concerns and instead set a dangerous precedent allowing unchecked military intrusion into civilian affairs.