Al-Haramain v. Obama

Last updated
Al-Haramain v. Obama
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case name Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Wendell Belew, Asim Ghafoor v. Barack Obama, National Security Agency, Keith B. Alexander, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Adam J. Szubin, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III
ArguedJune 1, 2012
DecidedAugust 7, 2012
Citation(s)690 F.3d 1089
Case history
Prior historyAl-Haramain v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2007)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Harry Pregerson, Michael Daly Hawkins, M. Margaret McKeown
Case opinions
MajorityMcKeown, joined by a unanimous court
Laws applied
50 U.S.C.S. § 1810

Al-Haramain v. Obama, 690 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2012) [1] 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. [2] The case withstood retroactive changes brought by the Congressional response to the NSA warrantless surveillance program. [3]

Contents

Background

In 2004 during proceedings to freeze al-Haramain Foundation, an Oregon Nonprofit Corporation, the government inadvertently gave the organization classified documents that suggest the foundation was subject to electronic surveillance. Al-Harmain and their two attorneys filed a lawsuit claiming violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act via unlawful surveillance, based on the classified documents that the government gave Al-Harmain. The district court found that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act preempted the state secrets privilege and waived sovereign immunity for damages under 50 U.S.C.S. § 1810.

Opinion

On March 31, 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, [4] because 50 U.S.C.S. § 1810 has no explicit waiver of sovereign immunity, and on 21 December awarded $2.5 million in attorneys' fees and about $41,000 to two of the three plaintiffs. [5] [6] The court affirm the dismissal of claims against Mueller.

The district court was reversed and the case was subsequently dismissed by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 7, 2012. [1]

Related Research Articles

al-Haramain Foundation

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation (AHIF) was a charity foundation, based in Saudi Arabia. Under various names it had branches in Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Comoros, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Tanzania, and the United States, and "at its height" raised between $40 and $50 million a year in contributions worldwide. While most of the foundation's funds went to feed poor Muslims around the world, a small percentage went to Al-Qaeda, and that money was "a major source of funds" for the terrorist group. In 2003, Saudi authorities ordered Al-Haramain to shut down all overseas branches, and by 2004 Saudi authorities had dissolved Al-Haramain. However, US intelligence officials believed it had reopened branches under new names.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 1978 United States federal law

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that establishes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and the collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of espionage or terrorism. The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.

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.

NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)

NSA warrantless surveillance — also commonly referred to as "warrantless-wiretapping" or "-wiretaps" — refers to 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, the phone calls, Internet activity, text messages and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lay 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).

United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), also known as the Keith case, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that upheld, in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in cases of domestic surveillance targeting a domestic threat.

Terrorist Surveillance Program 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. "The program, which enabled the United States to secretly track billions of phone calls made by millions of U.S. citizens over a period of decades, was a blueprint for the NSA surveillance that would come after it, with similarities too close to be coincidental". 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 is a United States class action lawsuit filed in January 2006 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) against the telecommunications company AT&T, in which the EFF alleges that AT&T permitted and assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in unlawfully monitoring the communications of the United States, including AT&T customers, businesses and third parties whose communications were routed through AT&T's network, as well as voice over IP telephone calls routed via the Internet.

MAINWAY The NSAs database of 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 four largest telephone carriers in the United States: AT&T, SBC, BellSouth and Verizon.

Room 641A

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.

Anna Diggs Taylor American judge

Anna Katherine Johnston Diggs Taylor was a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of immunity of cabinet officers from suits from individuals.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 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>Jewel v. NSA</i>

Jewel v. National Security Agency is a United States class action lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) against the National Security Agency (NSA) and several high-ranking officials in the administration of 43rd U.S. president George W. Bush, charging an "illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet communications surveillance".

Clapper v. Amnesty International, 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.

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

Klayman v. Obama was an American federal court case concerning the legality of the bulk collection of both phone and Internet metadata by the United States.

Litigation over global surveillance

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

Halperin v. Kissinger was a court case filed by Morton Halperin against National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, who approved wiretapping Halperin's home and White House office. The wiretaps continued for 21 months, from May 1969 until February 1971.

Elliott J. Schuchardt is an American civil liberties attorney.

References

  1. 1 2 Al-Haramain v. Obama, 690F.3d1089 (9th Cir.2012).
  2. Pantesco, Joshua (February 28, 2006). "Islamic charity sues to shut down NSA warrantless wiretapping program". JURIST (University of Pittsburgh School of Law). Archived from the original on January 11, 2011.
  3. Kaste, Martin (June 4, 2009). "Judge Tosses Warrantless Wiretap Cases". National Public Radio.
  4. Glenn, Matt (April 1, 2010). "Federal judge rules for Islamic charity in NSA wiretapping case". JURIST (University of Pittsburgh School of Law). Archived from the original on January 11, 2011.
  5. "Walker Awards $41K Damages, $2.5 Million Fee in Wiretap Case". The Recorder.
  6. In Re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records, Al-Haramain et. al v. Obama et. al, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Text of Al-Haramain v. Obama, 690 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2012) is available from:  CourtListener    Findlaw    Leagle    Google Scholar