Hepting v. AT&T

Last updated
Hepting v. AT&T
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case nameHepting v. AT&T Corporation
DecidedJuly 20, 2006
Citation(s)439 F.Supp.2d 974
Holding
Private telecommunications firms that conduct surveillance of customers under government orders are granted retroactive immunity from prosecution by the FISA Amendments Act; and the U.S. government cannot claim state secrets privilege when ordering such surveillance.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Vaughn Walker
Keywords
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, state secrets privilege

Hepting v. AT&T, 439 F.Supp.2d 974 (N.D. Cal., 2006), was a class action lawsuit argued before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of customers of the telecommunications company AT&T. The plaintiffs alleged that AT&T permitted and assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in unlawfully monitoring the personal communications of American citizens, including AT&T customers, whose communications were routed through AT&T's network. [1]

Contents

The District Court initially ruled that private telecommunications firms that conduct surveillance of customers under government orders can be sued by customers, while the U.S. government cannot claim state secrets privilege to avoid explaining its justifications for such surveillance. However, by the time the case had finished its journey through the courts, the question had become moot because telecommunications firms had received retroactive immunity from such lawsuits via the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. [2]

Background and allegations

In 2006, journalists revealed a widespread warrantless wiretapping operation in the United States, in which government security officials worked with telecommunications firms to surveil the personal communications of citizens under the guise of protecting the country against terrorism. [3] At about the same time, former AT&T engineer Mark Klein revealed that the company had allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to install a NarusInsight surveillance system in its San Francisco switching center (Room 641A), which was capable of monitoring billions of bits of Internet traffic per second, including the playback of telephone calls routed on the Internet, and in effect spying upon the entirety of the communications of many American citizens and businesses who use the Internet. [4] [5]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of aggrieved AT&T customers, with one named Tash Hepting volunteering to be named in the suit. [6] According to the EFF, "They [the NSA] could not do what they are doing without the help of companies like AT&T. We want to make it clear to AT&T that it is not in their legal or economic interests to violate the law whenever the president asks them to." [7]

On behalf of AT&T customers, EFF sought injunctive relief against AT&T for cooperating with such surveillance, and aggregated monetary damages allowed under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, and related statutes. These damages would exceed $100,000 for each instance of surveillance, creating potentially ruinous liability for AT&T, considering the EFF's claims about the scope of AT&T's cooperation in the surveillance of large numbers of customers. [8]

District Court proceedings and appeals

The case was heard at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in 2006. AT&T requested that the court dismiss the case because the EFF did not have standing to sue, nor did any of its customers because none could prove that they had been surveilled personally. [9] The National Security Agency (NSA) and the U.S. government worked on behalf of AT&T in the suit, with the government stating that it intended to invoke the state secrets privilege in a bid to dismiss the action. [10] The U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the case on those grounds. [9]

Judge Vaughn Walker of the District Court rejected the government's motion, holding that "[t]he government has opened the door for judicial inquiry by publicly confirming and denying material information about its monitoring of communications content." [11] As a result, the government parties were ordered to furnish evidence that the surveillance of citizens was necessary for national security. AT&T was ordered to do the same regarding its cooperation with the program. [1]

AT&T, with continuing assistance from the Department of Justice, appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit in 2007. [12] While that case was in progress, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act in 2008. [13] That statute granted retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies for past violations of the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which in turn required warrants for such activities. [14]

Shortly thereafter, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the government's appeal and remanded the case back to the District Court, to determine the likelihood of success in light of the immunity gained by AT&T from the FISA Amendments Act. [12] [15] The government filed another motion to dismiss the case, this time citing a specifically-written provision in the new statute that rendered any such legal actions moot. [16] [17]

The EFF opposed the motion to dismiss, asserting that the FISA Amendments Act's retroactive immunity provision was unconstitutional. [18] In 2009, Judge Walker dismissed the case on the grounds that such a dismissal was required under the newly-passed FISA Amendments Act. [2]

The EFF in turn appealed this ruling, with the dispute again being heard at the Ninth Circuit. [19] In 2011, that court dismissed the appeal because the EFF could not argue that AT&T had any legal liability for cooperating with the NSA surveillance, especially in light of the retroactive immunity against lawsuits enabled by the FISA Amendments Act. [20] The EFF attempted yet another appeal to the United States Supreme Court, but in 2012 that court refused to grant certiorari , [21] thus affirming the lower court decision that the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program did not violate American law.

Impact

One outcome of Hepting v. AT&T is the ability of the National Security Agency to claim that its mass surveillance program is a "reasonable" search under the Fourth Amendment, per an under-examined claim that doing so is necessary for preventing terrorism. [22] The retroactive immunity gained by telecommunications firms that cooperate with the program has attracted professional criticism because this allows the parties involved to avoid the constitutional implications of their actions. [23] Meanwhile, the use of state secrets privilege as allowed in the Hepting case enables the government to avoid Fourth Amendment discussions as well. [24] [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act</span> 1978 United States federal law

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that establishes procedures for the surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence on domestic soil.

The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security. United States v. Reynolds, which involved alleged military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)</span> Part of Terrorist Surveillance Program

NSA warrantless surveillance — also commonly referred to as "warrantless-wiretapping" or "-wiretaps" — was the surveillance of persons within the United States, including U.S. citizens, during the collection of notionally foreign intelligence by the National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. In late 2001, the NSA was authorized to monitor, without obtaining a FISA warrant, phone calls, Internet activities, text messages and other forms of communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lays within the U.S.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency</i>

American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 493 F.3d 644, is a case decided July 6, 2007, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit against the National Security Agency (NSA), because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorist Surveillance Program</span> NSA program

The Terrorist Surveillance Program was an electronic surveillance program implemented by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was part of the President's Surveillance Program, which was in turn conducted under the overall umbrella of the War on Terrorism. The NSA, a signals intelligence agency, implemented the program to intercept al Qaeda communications overseas where at least one party is not a U.S. person. In 2005, The New York Times disclosed that technical glitches resulted in some of the intercepts including communications which were "purely domestic" in nature, igniting the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. Later works, such as James Bamford's The Shadow Factory, described how the nature of the domestic surveillance was much, much more widespread than initially disclosed. In a 2011 New Yorker article, former NSA employee Bill Binney said that his colleagues told him that the NSA had begun storing billing and phone records from "everyone in the country."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">MAINWAY</span> NSA database of US telephone calls

MAINWAY is a database maintained by the United States' National Security Agency (NSA) containing metadata for hundreds of billions of telephone calls made through the largest telephone carriers in the United States, including AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile.

Warrantless searches are searches and seizures conducted without court-issued search warrants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Room 641A</span> Telecommunication facility allegedly used for U.S. National Security Agency surveillance

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protect America Act of 2007</span>

The Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA),, is a controversial amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on August 5, 2007. It removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 reauthorized many provisions of the Protect America Act in Title VII of FISA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008</span> United States Law

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, also called the FAA and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, is an Act of Congress that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It has been used as the legal basis for surveillance programs disclosed by Edward Snowden in 2013, including PRISM.

<i>Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice</i>

EPIC v. Department of Justice is a 2014 case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia between the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) where EPIC seeks court action to enforce their Freedom of Information Act request for documents that the Department of Justice has withheld pertaining to George W. Bush's authorization of NSA warrantless surveillance.

<i>Al-Haramain v. Obama</i>

Al-Haramain v. Obama, 690 F.3d 1089 was a case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California filed 28 February 2006 by the al-Haramain Foundation and its two attorneys concerning the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. The case withstood retroactive changes brought by the Congressional response to the NSA warrantless surveillance program.

<i>Jewel v. National Security Agency</i>

Jewel v. National Security Agency, 673 F.3d 902, was a class action lawsuit argued before the District Court for the Northern District of California and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of American citizens who believed that they had been surveilled by the National Security Agency (NSA) without a warrant. The EFF alleged that the NSA's surveillance program was an "illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet communications surveillance" and claimed violations of the Fourth Amendment.

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Amnesty International USA and others lacked standing to challenge 50 U.S.C. § 1881a of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as amended by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">FISA Improvements Act</span>

The FISA Improvements Act is a proposed act by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Prompted by the disclosure of NSA surveillance by Edward Snowden, it would establish the surveillance program as legal, but impose some limitations on availability of the data. Opponents say the bill would codify warrantless access to many communications of American citizens for use by domestic law enforcement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proposed reforms of mass surveillance by the United States</span>

Proposed reforms of mass surveillance by the United States are a collection of diverse proposals offered in response to the Global surveillance disclosures of 2013.

<i>Klayman v. Obama</i> American federal court case

Klayman v. Obama, 957 F.Supp.2d 1, was a decision by the United States District Court for District of Columbia finding that the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk phone metadata collection program was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The ruling was later overturned on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the constitutional implications of NSA surveillance unaddressed.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper</i> American federal court case

American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787, was a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its affiliate, the New York Civil Liberties Union, against the United States federal government as represented by then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The ACLU challenged the legality and constitutionality of the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk phone metadata collection program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Litigation over global surveillance</span>

Litigation over global surveillance has occurred in multiple jurisdictions since the global surveillance disclosures of 2013.

<i>Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA</i> Lawsuit against the U.S. National Security Agency

Wikimedia Foundation, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al. is a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and several other organizations against the National Security Agency (NSA), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), and other named individuals, alleging mass surveillance of Wikipedia users carried out by the NSA. The suit claims the surveillance system, which NSA calls "Upstream", breaches the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

References

  1. 1 2 Hepting v. At & T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal., 2006).
  2. 1 2 In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, order, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, MDL Docket No 06-1791 VRW, 2009.
  3. ↑ Sanger, David E.; O'Neil, John (January 23, 2006). "White House Begins New Effort to Defend Surveillance Program". The New York Times.
  4. ↑ Bamford, James (March 15, 2012). "The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)". Wired . Retrieved April 23, 2012.
  5. ↑ "AT&T Whistle-Blower's Evidence". Wired. May 17, 2006. Archived from the original on March 28, 2014. Retrieved February 27, 2009.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  6. ↑ "Hepting v. AT&T | Electronic Frontier Foundation". Eff.org. January 31, 2006. Retrieved February 12, 2014.
  7. ↑ Singel, Ryan (31 January 2006). "AT&T Sued Over NSA Eavesdropping". Wired. Retrieved 2022-11-21.
  8. ↑ Hepting v. AT&T, amended complaint for damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, No. C-06-0672-JCS, 2006.
  9. 1 2 Hepting v. AT&T, motion to dismiss order, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. C-06-672 (2006).
  10. ↑ "Department of Justice Statement of Interest re: State and Military Secrets | Electronic Frontier Foundation" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-08-30. Retrieved 2014-08-15.
  11. ↑ Markoff, John (July 21, 2006). "Judge Declines to Dismiss Privacy Suit Against AT&T". The New York Times.
  12. 1 2 Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 539 F. 3d 1157 (9th Cir., 2008).
  13. ↑ Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity, New York Times , 2 Jul 2008. Retrieved Jun 2013.
  14. ↑ Lichtblau, Eric (October 10, 2007). "Immunity Crucial in Talks on Eavesdropping Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2010.
  15. ↑ Hepting v. AT&T, remand order, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, D.C. No. CV-06-00672-VRW (2008).
  16. ↑ In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, motion to dismiss United States District Court for the Northern District of California, MTL Dkt. No. 06-1791-VRW (2008).
  17. ↑ Kravets, David. "Feds to Judge: Don't 'Second Guess' Bush Domestic Spy Program". Wired. ISSN   1059-1028 . Retrieved 2022-11-21.
  18. ↑ In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, motion to dismiss, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, MDL Docket No. 06-1791-VRW (2008).
  19. ↑ Kravets, David (August 31, 2011). "Feds, EFF Clash in Appeals Court Hearing on NSA Spying". Wired Magazine. Retrieved 14 September 2011.
  20. ↑ In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, order, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 09-16676 et al., 2011.
  21. ↑ Kerr, Dara. "Supreme Court closes door on warrantless eavesdropping suit". CNET. Retrieved 2022-11-21.
  22. ↑ Cramer, Benjamin W. (2018). "A Proposal to Adopt Data Discrimination Rather than Privacy as the Justification for Rolling Back Data Surveillance". Journal of Information Policy. 8: 5–33. doi: 10.5325/jinfopoli.8.2018.0005 . S2CID   158194048 – via JSTOR.
  23. ↑ Wagner, Mike (November 2009). "Warrantless Wiretapping, Retroactive Immunity, and the Fifth Amendment". George Washington Law Review. 78 (1): 204–236 – via HeinOnline.
  24. ↑ Fichera, Stephanie A. (January 2008). "Compromising Liberty for National Security: The Need to Rein in the Executive's Use of the State-Secrets Privilege in Post-September 11 Litigation". University of Miami Law Review. 62 (2): 625–650 – via HeinOnline.
  25. ↑ Ziegler, Margaret (2008). "Pay No Attention to the Man behind the Curtain: the Government's Increased Use of the State Secrets Privilege to Conceal Wrongdoing". Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 23 (1): 691–722 – via HeinOnline.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.