Klayman v. Obama

Last updated

Klayman v. Obama
Seal of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.png
Court United States District Court for the District of Columbia
DecidedDecember 16, 2013
DefendantKlayman I: Verizon Communications, President Barack Obama, NSA director (General Keith B. Alexander), Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr., US District Judge Roger Vinson; Klayman II: Facebook, Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, YouTube, AOL, PalTalk, Skype, Sprint, AT&T, Apple and the same government defendants as in Klayman I
Holding
Warrantless telecommunications surveillance is not permitted under the Fourth Amendment.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Richard J. Leon

Klayman v. Obama, 957 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C., 2013), 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. [1] The ruling was later overturned on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the constitutional implications of NSA surveillance unaddressed. [2]

Contents

Background

The lawsuit arose in the wake of disclosures by Edward Snowden in 2013, revealing a system of global surveillance by the NSA and its international partners. [3] [4] In one particular revelation, The Guardian reported that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, at the request of the NSA, had ordered Verizon to hand over several months' worth of personal communications records for many of its customers. The phone numbers of both parties on a call were handed over, as was the call's location, time, and duration. [4]

Shortly after the disclosures, conservative activist Larry Klayman, along with several co-plaintiffs, filed suit and named the Obama Administration as the defendant. [5] In a complaint known as Klayman I, Klayman sued on behalf of Verizon Wireless customers against the NSA, the Department of Justice, Verizon Communications, President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and NSA Director General Keith B. Alexander. This complaint alleged that the NSA communications surveillance constituted a search of each customer's personal data, and thus required a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. [6]

In the Klayman II complaint, Klayman sued the same government defendants as well as Facebook, Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, YouTube, AOL, PalTalk, Skype, Sprint, AT&T, and Apple under the allegation that those companies collaborated with the NSA to hand over data during the surveillance program. In addition to the constitutional argument, this complaint added an allegation of a violation of Section 2702 of the Stored Communications Act. [7] Klayman and his co-plaintiffs also alleged that the government was behind inexplicable phone calls and text messages sent to and from their phone numbers. [8] [9]

District court ruling

The case was heard at the United States District Court for District of Columbia, combining the Klayman I and Klayman II complaints. On December 16, 2013, Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that bulk collection of American telephone metadata likely violates the Fourth Amendment. Leon wrote:

I cannot imagine a more "indiscriminate" and "arbitrary" invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval [...] Surely, such a program infringes on "that degree of privacy" that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. [1]

Leon, the first judge to examine an NSA program outside of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) on behalf of a non-criminal suspect, described the technology used as "almost Orwellian", referring to the George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four . Leon stated that he had "serious doubts about the efficacy" of the program, [10] because the government was unable to cite "a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive." [11]

Leon ruled that a 1979 Supreme Court precedent that the NSA often cited as justification for its surveillance, Smith v. Maryland (which established that phone metadata is not subject to the Fourth Amendment), [12] did not apply to the NSA program. He termed the use of telephone metadata in Smith v. Maryland as "short-term forward looking capture" and that of NSA as "long-term historical retrospective analysis". Citing the NSA's vast scope and "the evolving role of phones and technology", Leon's opinion pointed out that the Fourth Amendment needs to adapt to the digital age. [1]

In his analysis, Leon rejected the government's argument that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the bulk telephony metadata program. Instead, their fear of being surveilled was not merely speculative. Therefore, the plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of success on their Fourth Amendment arguments. [1] This was supported by a leaked FISC document stating that Verizon had been ordered to provide customer communication data and business records on a regular basis. [13] Thus, the NSA surveillance constituted a search of each person's data. which in turn required a warrant per the Fourth Amendment. [1]

Although Leon did not find any evidence that plaintiffs' data in particular was being analyzed, he declared that he had reason to believe that everyone's metadata was being analyzed due to the NSA's own descriptions of its programs. [1] [10] In Leon's words, "Because the Government can use daily metadata collection to engage in repetitive, surreptitious surveillance of a citizen's private goings on, the NSA database implicates the Fourth Amendment each time a government official monitors it." [10] Thus, the NSA surveillance program was declared unconstitutional. [11]

Leon dismissed some portions of Klayman's complaints due to lack of evidence or standing, including allegations of the surveillance of foreign nationals via the PRISM program, while the particular NSA program at issue had been discontinued in 2011 so its legality did not need to be addressed. [10] [14]

On the ruling, The Washington Post noted: "NSA officials... now stand accused of presiding over a program whose capabilities were deemed by the judge to be 'Orwellian' and likely illegal." [15] [16] Edward Snowden issued a statement in response to the ruling, saying in part:

I acted on my belief that the NSA's mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts. Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans' rights. It is the first of many. [17]

While his ruling deemed NSA telecommunications surveillance to be substantially illegal, Leon stayed the ruling and gave the government six months to appeal. [18]

Subsequent developments

The government exercised Leon's invitation to appeal. On November 20, 2015, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a short memorandum opinion that vacated Leon's ruling and held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the heightened burden of proof regarding the standing required for an injunction against a government program. [2] This resulted in the case being remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings in which the matter of the plaintiffs' standing would be discussed further. In 2017, Leon dismissed the suit because Klayman and his co-plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate the actual harm necessary to achieve standing. [19]

Impact

The ruling in Klayman v. Obama directly conflicted with a different District Court ruling in American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper , in which the Fourth Amendment was not discussed in favor of an analysis of the effectiveness of the NSA's efforts to fight terrorism. [20] This resulted in a split precedent, which in turn caused significant confusion over whether NSA surveillance violated the Constitution, along with calls for a definitive Supreme Court decision on the matter. [21] [22]

While acknowledging Leon's attempts to address the Fourth Amendment implications of NSA data surveillance, legal commentators largely concluded that the ruling left the constitutional questions vague and poorly addressed. [23] [24] Others noted the continuing conflict between the Fourth Amendment and surveillance procedures enabled by the Patriot Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which also remained unclear after the ruling. [25] [26]

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">Controversial invocations of the Patriot Act</span>

The following are controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act. The stated purpose of the Act is to "deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes." One criticism of the Act is that "other purposes" often includes the detection and prosecution of non-terrorist alleged future crimes.

<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).

<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.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a Supreme Court case holding that the installation and use of a pen register by the police to obtain information on a suspect's telephone calls was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence no search warrant was required. In the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a violation of the suspect's reasonable expectation of privacy since the telephone numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PRISM</span> Mass surveillance program run by the NSA

PRISM is a code name for a program under which the United States National Security Agency (NSA) collects internet communications from various U.S. internet companies. The program is also known by the SIGAD US-984XN. PRISM collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google LLC and Apple under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms. Among other things, the NSA can use these PRISM requests to target communications that were encrypted when they traveled across the internet backbone, to focus on stored data that telecommunication filtering systems discarded earlier, and to get data that is easier to handle.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010s global surveillance disclosures</span> Disclosures of NSA and related global espionage

Ongoing news reports in the international media have revealed operational details about the Anglophone cryptographic agencies' global surveillance of both foreign and domestic nationals. The reports mostly emanate from a cache of top secret documents leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden, which he obtained whilst working for Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the largest contractors for defense and intelligence in the United States. In addition to a trove of U.S. federal documents, Snowden's cache reportedly contains thousands of Australian, British, Canadian and New Zealand intelligence files that he had accessed via the exclusive "Five Eyes" network. In June 2013, the first of Snowden's documents were published simultaneously by The Washington Post and The Guardian, attracting considerable public attention. The disclosure continued throughout 2013, and a small portion of the estimated full cache of documents was later published by other media outlets worldwide, most notably The New York Times, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Der Spiegel (Germany), O Globo (Brazil), Le Monde (France), L'espresso (Italy), NRC Handelsblad, Dagbladet (Norway), El País (Spain), and Sveriges Television (Sweden).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reactions to global surveillance disclosures</span>

The global surveillance disclosure released to media by Edward Snowden has caused tension in the bilateral relations of the United States with several of its allies and economic partners as well as in its relationship with the European Union. In August 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama announced the creation of "a review group on intelligence and communications technologies" that would brief and later report to him. In December, the task force issued 46 recommendations that, if adopted, would subject the National Security Agency (NSA) to additional scrutiny by the courts, Congress, and the president, and would strip the NSA of the authority to infiltrate American computer systems using "backdoors" in hardware or software. Geoffrey R. Stone, a White House panel member, said there was no evidence that the bulk collection of phone data had stopped any terror attacks.

This is a category of disclosures related to global surveillance.

The Fourth Amendment Protection Acts, are a collection of state legislation aimed at withdrawing state support for bulk data (metadata) collection and ban the use of warrant-less data in state courts. They are proposed nullification laws that, if enacted as law, would prohibit the state governments from co-operating with the National Security Agency, whose mass surveillance efforts are seen as unconstitutional by the proposals' proponents. Specific examples include the Kansas Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act and the Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act. The original proposals were made in 2013 and 2014 by legislators in the American states of Utah, Washington, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and California. Some of the bills would require a warrant before information could be released, whereas others would forbid state universities from doing NSA research or hosting NSA recruiters, or prevent the provision of services such as water to NSA facilities.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barack Obama on mass surveillance</span> Overview of the statements of former U.S. president Barack Obama on mass surveillance

Former U.S. President Barack Obama favored some levels of mass surveillance. He has received some widespread criticism from detractors as a result. Due to his support of certain government surveillance, some critics have said his support may have gone beyond acceptable privacy rights. This is of course a debatable conclusion. Many former US presidents have increased the abilities and techniques used for intelligence gathering. President Obama released many statements on mass surveillance.

<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.

In Re Electronic Privacy Information Center, 134 S.Ct. 638 (2013), was a direct petition to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the National Security Agency's (NSA) telephony metadata collection program. On July 8, 2013, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition, or a writ of certiorari, to vacate an order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in which the court compelled Verizon to produce telephony metadata records from all of its subscribers' calls and deliver those records to the NSA. On November 18, 2013, the Supreme Court denied EPIC's petition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)</span>

This timeline of global surveillance disclosures from 2013 to the present day is a chronological list of the global surveillance disclosures that began in 2013. The disclosures have been largely instigated by revelations from the former American National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

<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 3 4 5 6 Klayman v. Obama, 957 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.C.D.C., 2013).
  2. 1 2 Klayman v. Obama, 805 F. 3d 1148 (D.C. Cir., 2015).
  3. ↑ Barton Gellman (December 24, 2013). "Edward Snowden, after months of NSA revelations, says his mission's accomplished". The Washington Post . Retrieved December 25, 2013. Taken together, the revelations have brought to light a global surveillance system...
  4. 1 2 Greenwald, Glenn (June 6, 2013). "NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily". The Guardian. Retrieved August 16, 2013.
  5. ↑ Montgomery, David (May 9, 2014). "Can Larry Klayman make history with his NSA lawsuit?". Washington Post Magazine.
  6. ↑ Leon, Richard (December 16, 2013). "Federal judge rules NSA program is likely unconstitutional a.k.a. Klayman et al. v. Obama et al. Memorandum and Opinion from December 16, 2013 in Civil Action 13-0851 in United Case District Court for the District of Columbia". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 30, 2017. Retrieved December 17, 2013.
  7. ↑ Klayman, Larry (June 11, 2013). "Prism Complaint aka Klayman et al v. Obama et al" (PDF). Freedom Watch. Retrieved February 25, 2014.
  8. ↑ Klayman, Larry (October 28, 2013). "Affidavit of Larry Klayman" . Retrieved March 4, 2014.
  9. ↑ Strange, Charles (October 28, 2013). "Affidavit of Charles Strange" . Retrieved March 4, 2014.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Savage, Charlie (December 16, 2013). "Federal Judge's Ruling on N.S.A. Lawsuit". The New York Times. Retrieved February 25, 2014.
  11. 1 2 Bill Mears and Evan Perez (December 17, 2013). "Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional". CNN.
  12. ↑ Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
  13. ↑ "Verizon forced to hand over telephone data – full court ruling". June 6, 2013. Retrieved March 4, 2014.
  14. ↑ Lance, Duroni (February 10, 2014). "Klayman's Internet Spying Claims Fail, NSA Says" . Retrieved March 4, 2014.
  15. ↑ "Officials' defenses of NSA phone program may be unraveling". The Washington Post.
  16. ↑ Davidson, Amy, "Why Edward Snowden Deserves Amnesty", The New Yorker, December 19, 2013.
  17. ↑ Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts in Washington (December 16, 2013). "NSA phone surveillance program likely unconstitutional, federal judge rules". The Guardian.
  18. ↑ Savage, Charlie (December 16, 2013). "Judge Questions Legality of N.S.A. Phone Records". The New York Times. Retrieved February 25, 2014.
  19. ↑ Farivar, Cyrus (November 23, 2017). "Judge who once ruled against NSA metadata program tosses lawsuit". ArsTechnica. ArsTechnica. Retrieved March 20, 2018.
  20. ↑ American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F. 3d 787 (2nd. Cir., 2015).
  21. ↑ 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 – via JSTOR.
  22. ↑ Schmitt, Gary (January 13, 2014). "A Tale of Two Judges". The Weekly Standard. Retrieved March 9, 2014.
  23. ↑ Mastracci, Joshua M. (2014). "Klayman v. Obama: The D.C. District Court Misinterprets the NSA Metadata Collection Program as a Violation of Individual Fourth Amendment Rights". Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. 17: 365–374 – via HeinOnline.
  24. ↑ Kalanges, Shaina (Summer 2014). "Modern Private Data Collection and National Security Agency Surveillance: A Comprehensive Package of Solutions Addressing Domestic Surveillance Concerns". Northern Illinois University Law Review. 34 (3): 643–680 – via HeinOnline.
  25. ↑ Praast, Linda Renee (Fall 2014). "This Isn't Your Founding Fathers' Fourth Amendment: Analyzing the Constitutionality of Warrantless Metadata Collection under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act". California Western Law Review. 51 (1): 7–24 – via HeinOnline.
  26. ↑ McGowan, Casey J. (April 2014). "The Relevance of Relevance: Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act and the NSA Metadata Collection Program". Fordham Law Review. 82 (5): 2399–2442 – 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.