The Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained four warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveil Petitioner Dr. Carter Page. But its applications contained multiple errors, omissions, and misstatements that the FBI later concluded vitiated its showing of probable cause. Worse, it was later revealed that two agents leaked information about the FBI's surveillance to the press, resulting in an April 2017 article in The Washington Post on which the government expressly "declined to comment." The United States first acknowledged its surveillance abuses in an Office of the Inspector General report two years later. Less than a year later, Dr. Page sued the individual respondents—the FBI officials and leaders involved in the surveillance—for unlawfully surveilling him and unlawfully using or disclosing surveillance-obtained information.

The D.C. Circuit held that Dr. Page's claims accrued, not when the government acknowledged its abuses, but when Dr. Page became aware of the anonymously sourced, unverified news article. And the D.C. Circuit did so without applying—and in contravention of—this Court's "standard rule" that a claim does not accrue "until the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief." Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 603 U.S. 799, 810-811 (2024) (emphasis added).

The question presented is: Do claims that the government violated surveillance authorities accrue as a matter of law based merely on facts that might lead a victim to suspect unlawful surveillance, rather than on facts that would establish a basis for relief?

Do claims that the government violated surveillance authorities accrue as a matter of law based merely on facts that might lead a victim to suspect unlawful surveillance, rather than on facts that would establish a basis for relief?