The Supreme Court severely damaged the rule of law in its decision on Tuesday to disallow a lawsuit challenging the federal law that permits broad, secret surveillance and interception of international communications involving Americans. The suit, brought by lawyers, journalists and human rights activists, charged that the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violate their rights to privacy and free speech.

Justice Samuel Alito Jr., writing the 5-to-4 majority opinion, misleadingly presented the court as a model of restraint and its ruling as a narrow one. But, in fact, the decision will likely shut down all judicial review of this pernicious surveillance law, barring anyone from ever challenging its constitutionality in federal court.

The majority ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because they cannot show they have been harmed by the surveillance law. This is a classic Catch-22: since the surveillance is secret and no one can say for certain that their calls, e-mails and other communications have been or will be monitored, by the court’s logic no one will ever be able to show standing to bring a lawsuit.

The court’s decision is a clear-cut abdication of its fundamental role in the American constitutional system of checks and balances, which ensures that Congress and the president are not infringing on protected rights.