Jewel v. National Security Agency

Last updated

Jewel v. National Security Agency
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameCarolyn Jewel v. National Security Agency
ArguedAugust 31, 2011
DecidedDecember 29, 2011
Citation(s)673 F.3d 902
Holding
Citizens wishing to file suit against the U.S. Government for warrantless telecommunications surveillance must prove standing and personal injury.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Harry Pregerson, Michael Daly Hawkins and M. Margaret McKeown
Case opinions
MajorityM. Margaret McKeown
Laws applied
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Fourth Amendment

Jewel v. National Security Agency, 673 F.3d 902 (9th Cir., 2011), 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. [1] 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. [2] [3]

Contents

Background

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. [4] 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. [5] [6]

Litigation history

Initial District Court case

In 2008, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) initiated a class action lawsuit against the government on behalf of aggrieved citizens, with one named Carolyn Jewel volunteering to be named in the suit. [7] The government moved to dismiss the suit because the plaintiffs could not prove direct personal injury from the surveillance, and thus lacked standing to sue, while the surveillance program itself could remain confidential under the state secrets privilege. [8] The case was first heard at the District Court for the Northern District of California. [9] Judge Vaughn Walker dismissed the suit in January 2010, holding that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing because their claims amounted to a "general grievance" against the government, with no evidence of direct personal injury. [10]

The EFF appealed this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [11]

Circuit court ruling

On appeal, in December 2011 the Ninth Circuit initially reversed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case back to the lower court to further determine the validity of the government's state secrets privilege claim. [1] The case was thus returned to the District Court for the Northern District of California but with few new developments for about the next 18 months.

Subsequent District Court actions

In the meantime, NSA whistleblower William Binney testified in July 2012 in support of the EFF, claiming that the NSA was "purposefully violating the Constitution". [12] The NSA's mass surveillance program then became a matter of widespread public knowledge upon the revelations by Edward Snowden in June 2013. [13]

In July 2013, District Court Judge Jeffrey White rejected the government's claim of state secrets privilege and allowed the EFF class action suit to continue, [14] [15] further holding that the surveillance program constituted a search process that in turn required a warrant for each search, per the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. [7]

Later in 2013 the court ordered the NSA to explain the perceived impact of the recent Snowden revelations on the Jewel case and on its general national security efforts. In December 2013, the government again claimed the state secrets privilege and declassified documents detailing its process while reaching this decision. [16] The NSA in the meantime was destroying the relevant records, because it was required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to delete any such records after a proscribed period. [7]

In March 2014, Judge White imposed a temporary restraining order, requiring the NSA to halt the destruction of evidence until a final resolution of the Jewel case. [17] In June 2014, the EFF requested an emergency hearing requesting that the court enforce the temporary restraining order, after discovering that the government had continued the destruction of evidence. [18] The NSA filed a counter-motion claiming that altering its process of deleting records and revealing the targets of its ongoing surveillance operation would have severe consequences "including the possible suspension of the Section 702 program and potential loss of access to lawfully collected signals intelligence information on foreign intelligence targets." [19]

In February 2015, Judge White dismissed the latest motion by the EFF, accepting the NSA's argument that the requirements placed upon the agency would engender the "impermissible disclosure of state secret information," and he also held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue their claims. [20] This procedural ruling allowed White to avoid addressing the constitutionality of the NSA's mass surveillance program. [21]

Upon the disclosure of more information about the NSA's surveillance methods, the EFF filed another motion in May 2017 requesting that the agency disclose information about surveillance conducted against Carolyn Jewel and the other plaintiffs. Judge White granted this motion and ordered the government to hand over the information. [22] [23] However, the NSA filed a motion in opposition to that order, claiming once again that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue. After further arguments, the District Court accepted this argument in April 2019. [24]

The EFF appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit. In a memorandum opinion, that court ruled in favor of the NSA, once again on the matter of standing. [25] In June 2022, the EFF made a final request to the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, but that court rejected the request and did not grant certiorari . [26]

Impact

The ultimate outcome of Jewel v. National Security Agency is that the U.S. government was able to avoid the Fourth Amendment implications of its mass surveillance program via procedural arguments about the need to keep its methods secret, while claiming that individual citizens cannot prove direct harm from the program. [27] However, citizens have been unable to demonstrate standing because the NSA has argued successfully that the evidence needed for that task must remain secret, thus creating a Catch-22 situation. [28] This has generated some criticism, because while the NSA's argument could possibly be justified under old evidence-gathering processes, the Jewel case did not address the much easier collection of personal information enabled by modern Internet and telecommunications technologies. [29] [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court</span> U.S. federal court

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), also called the FISA Court, is a U.S. federal court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Security Agency</span> U.S. signals intelligence organization

The National Security Agency (NSA) is an intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defense, under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The NSA is responsible for global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign and domestic intelligence and counterintelligence purposes, specializing in a discipline known as signals intelligence (SIGINT). The NSA is also tasked with the protection of U.S. communications networks and information systems. The NSA relies on a variety of measures to accomplish its mission, the majority of which are clandestine. The NSA has roughly 32,000 employees.

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">James Bamford</span> American author, journalist and documentary producer

James Bamford is an American author, journalist and documentary producer noted for his writing about United States intelligence agencies, especially the National Security Agency (NSA). The New York Times has called him "the nation's premier journalist on the subject of the National Security Agency" and The New Yorker named him "the NSA's chief chronicler."

<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."

<i>Hepting v. AT&T</i>

Hepting v. AT&T, 439 F.Supp.2d 974, 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.

<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.

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

Room 641A is a telecommunication interception facility operated by AT&T for the U.S. National Security Agency, as part of its warrantless surveillance program as authorized by the Patriot Act. The facility commenced operations in 2003 and its purpose was publicly revealed in 2006.

<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.

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 section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass surveillance in the United States</span>

The practice of mass surveillance in the United States dates back to wartime monitoring and censorship of international communications from, to, or which passed through the United States. After the First and Second World Wars, mass surveillance continued throughout the Cold War period, via programs such as the Black Chamber and Project SHAMROCK. The formation and growth of federal law-enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and NSA institutionalized surveillance used to also silence political dissent, as evidenced by COINTELPRO projects which targeted various organizations and individuals. During the Civil Rights Movement era, many individuals put under surveillance orders were first labelled as integrationists, then deemed subversive, and sometimes suspected to be supportive of the communist model of the United States' rival at the time, the Soviet Union. Other targeted individuals and groups included Native American activists, African American and Chicano liberation movement activists, and anti-war protesters.

<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.

Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Halkin v. Helms is a landmark 1978 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case concerning the State secrets privilege.

References

  1. 1 2 Jewel v. National Security Agency, 673 F. 3d 902 (9th Cir., 2011).
  2. ↑ Jewel v. NSA, complaint for constitutional and statutory violations, seeking damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 08-4373, 2008.
  3. ↑ Mullins, K. J. (September 20, 2008). "Jewel v. NSA Aims To Stop Illegal Surveillance". Digital Journal. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
  4. ↑ Sanger, David E.; O'Neil, John (January 23, 2006). "White House Begins New Effort to Defend Surveillance Program". The New York Times.
  5. ↑ Bamford, James (March 15, 2012). "The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)". Wired . Retrieved April 23, 2012.
  6. ↑ "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)
  7. 1 2 3 "Jewel v. NSA". Electronic Frontier Foundation. July 1, 2011. Retrieved November 21, 2022.
  8. ↑ Kravets, David (July 15, 2009). "Obama Claims Immunity, As New Spy Case Takes Center Stage". Wired . Retrieved December 30, 2011.
  9. ↑ Jewel v. National Security Agency, 2010 WL 235075 (N.D. Cal., 2010).
  10. ↑ Kravets, David (January 22, 2010). "Judge Tosses NSA Spy Cases". Wired . Retrieved December 30, 2011.
  11. ↑ Jeralyn (December 29, 2011). "9th Circuit Allows Wiretap Suit Against NSA to Proceed". talkleft.com. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
  12. ↑ "Sworn Declaration of Whistleblower William Binney on NSA Domestic Surveillance Capabilities". Public Intelligence. July 16, 2012.
  13. ↑ Barton Gellman (December 24, 2013). "Edward Snowden, after months of NSA revelations, says his mission's accomplished". The Washington Post . Retrieved December 25, 2013.
  14. ↑ Jewel v. National Security Agency, 965 F.Supp.2d 1090 (N.D. Cal., 2013).
  15. ↑ McCullagh, Declan (July 8, 2013). "Judge: Lawsuit alleging illegal NSA spying may continue". CNET .
  16. ↑ Savage, Charlie; Sanger, David. E (December 21, 2013). "White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts". The New York Times .
  17. ↑ Jewel v. National Security Agency, Notice of Motion and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, United States District for the Northern District of California, Case No. 08-CV-4373-JSW, 2014.
  18. ↑ Jewel v. National Security Agency, Plaintiffs' Emergency Application to Enforce the Court's TRO, United States District for the Northern District of California, Case No. 08-CV-4373-JSW, 2014.
  19. ↑ Jewel v. National Security Agency, Emergency Motion to Stay the Court's June 5, 2014 Order, United States District for the Northern District of California, Case No. 08-CV-4373-JSW, 2014.
  20. ↑ Hattern, Julian (February 10, 2015). "Court upholds NSA snooping". The Hill .
  21. ↑ Volz, Dustin (February 10, 2015). "Judge Dismisses Challenge to NSA Internet Surveillance". National Journal .
  22. ↑ Jewel v. National Security Agency, Civil Minute Order, United States District for the Northern District of California, Case No. 08-CV-4373-JSW, 2017.
  23. ↑ "Judge Orders Government to Provide Evidence About Internet Surveillance". eff.org. May 23, 2017. Retrieved January 23, 2018.
  24. ↑ Jewel v. National Security Agency, Order granting government's summary judgment motion, United States District for the Northern District of California, Case No. 08-CV-4373-JSW, 2019.
  25. ↑ Jewel v. National Security Agency, 9th Circuit Opinion (August 17, 2021), memorandum order, D.C. No. 4:08-cv-04373-JSW (2021).
  26. ↑ Cohn, Cindy (June 13, 2022). "EFF's Flagship Jewel v. NSA Dragnet Spying Case Rejected by the Supreme Court". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved June 18, 2022.
  27. ↑ Pugh, Megan (Fall 2021). "Privacy? What Privacy?: Reforming the State Secrets Privilege to Protect Individual Privacy Rights from Expansive Government Surveillance". Belmont Law Review. 9 (1): 265–316 – via HeinOnline.
  28. ↑ 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.
  29. ↑ Litt, Robert S. (2016). "The Fourth Amendment in the Information Age". Yale Law Journal Forum. 126: 8–20 – via HeinOnline.
  30. ↑ Cohn, Cindy (2016). "Protecting the Fourth Amendment in the Information Age: A Response to Robert Litt". Yale Law Journal Forum. 126: 107–117 – 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.