In Laird v. Tatum, Laird v. Tatum (1972) 408 U.S. 1, the Supreme Court rejected a civil rights claim that failed to establish any actual violation or injury. In an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs alleged that their rights were being invaded by the Department of the Army's "'surveillance of lawful and peaceful civilian political activity.'" Laird v. Tatum, supra, 408 U.S. at page 2. The district court granted the defendants' motion for dismissal and held that the plaintiffs failed to state a viable claim. Specifically, the district court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege both that the Army engaged any unlawful activity and that the Army's activity somehow threatened or violated their rights. In agreeing with the district court, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the Army's activity had a chilling effect on the exercise of their First Amendment rights. See Laird v. Tatum, supra, 408 U.S. at pages 8-16. The court noted the ". . . 'established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained, or is immediately in danger of sustaining, a direct injury as the result of that action . . . .'" Laird v. Tatum, supra, 408 U.S. at page 13. The fear of the Army's future misuse of gathered information to the plaintiffs' detriment failed to constitute a specific objective harm. The California Supreme Court therefore concluded that plaintiffs had not presented a case that required resolution by the courts. Laird v. Tatum, supra, 408 U.S. at page 15.