That was because she hadn't been able to prove any direct damages from the attempted identity theft that occurred in the past (Discover reversed the fraudulent charge), while the threat she faced in the future was not "imminent."As this article notes, the ruling turns on a high profile case involving government surveillance and the now-infamous FISA courts dating back to the Carter administration: Clapper v. Amnesty International USA . In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the human rights group and a collection of lawyers and reporters in a challenge to part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The plaintiffs said they feared that their sources, colleagues and clients would be targets of U.S. government surveillance, and the threat would force them to take expensive security measures to keep their communications private. The High Court ruled otherwise, saying the threat of government surveillance was hypothetical, but not "certainly impending." In his 15 page ruling (PDF), U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt said the same logic applied to Peters' suit as well. "Under Clapper, Peters must at least plausibly establish a "certainly impending" or "substantial" risk that she will be victimized," Hoyt wrote. "The allegation that risk has been increased does not transform that assertion into a cognizable injury.