American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper

Last updated

American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameAmerican Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper
ArguedSeptember 2, 2014
DecidedMay 7, 2015
Citation785 F.3d 787
Holding
Warrantless telecommunications surveillance is not permitted under the USA Patriot Act (later rectified by the USA Freedom Act).
Court membership
Judges sitting Gerard E. Lynch, Robert D. Sack and Vernon S. Broderick
Case opinions
MajorityGerard E. Lynch
Laws applied
USA Patriot Act, USA Freedom Act, Fourth Amendment

American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2nd Cir., 2015), 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. [1]

Contents

The challenge was initially rejected in District Court, but that ruling was overturned at the Circuit Court level. [2] However, this particular ruling later became moot when the U.S. Congress clarified NSA surveillance procedures in the USA Freedom Act of 2015. [3]

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. [4] [5] 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. The contents of the conversations were not covered in the order, but the metadata could be collected without a warrant under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. [5]

The ACLU sued Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA Director Keith B. Alexander, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Attorney General Eric Holder, and FBI director Robert Mueller, claiming that the NSA's mass surveillance program violated the First and Fourth Amendments, and particularly the warrant requirements of the latter. [6] Specifically, the ACLU argued that collection of telephone metadata constituted an invasion of privacy and unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment for Verizon subscribers, and that collecting the data could chill the free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment if people became reluctant to communicate due to a fear of government surveillance. [7]

Litigation history

Initial District Court ruling

The case was first heard at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 28, 2013, Judge William Pauley dismissed the ACLU's complaint. Pauley ruled that phone users had no reasonable expectation of privacy for phone metadata, so a government search of that data did not require a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. [7] This holding was based on the 1979 Supreme Court precedent Smith v. Maryland , in which it was determined that people who voluntarily give data to third-party telecommunications firms could not expect that data to be private. Pauley found no reason why Smith v. Maryland, which concluded that phone metadata was outside the expectation of privacy, would not apply to the NSA's program. [8]

Pauley also held that the data collection was supported by the NSA's internal procedures that were in turn authorized under security-oriented statutes like the Patriot Act. According to Keith B. Alexander, the NSA did not perform any pattern analysis or automated data mining to extract additional personal information from every phone user's metadata, but it did need to collect that data to build a database from which individual pieces of information could be searched specifically with a warrant in the future. [9] The court held that this technique was the least intrusive and most practicable method for the NSA's purposes. [10]

Pauley was also convinced by the NSA's arguments that the metadata collection program was necessary for protecting America from terrorist attacks, citing purported success stories like the identification of Najibullah Zazi in connection with the New York City Subway bombing plot, Khalid Ouazzani in connection with the New York Stock Exchange bombing plot, and David Headley in connection with the Mumbai bombings and Danish newspaper bombing plots. [11]

Pauley concluded that even though the privacy concerns raised by the surveillance program were "not trivial," the potential benefits of surveillance outweighed such considerations. [12] [13] Thus the NSA's surveillance program was found to be in compliance with the Patriot Act. [7] In turn, Pauley avoided the Fourth Amendment considerations of the complaint. [14]

The ACLU appealed this ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. [1]

Circuit Court ruling

At the Second Circuit, the ACLU argued:

"The government has a legitimate interest in tracking the associations of suspected terrorists, but tracking those associations does not require the government to subject every citizen to permanent surveillance. Further, as the president's own review panel recently observed, there's no evidence that this dragnet program was essential to preventing any terrorist attack. We categorically reject the notion that the threat of terrorism requires citizens of democratic countries to surrender the freedoms that make democracies worth defending." [15]

On May 7, 2015, the Second Circuit held that "the telephone metadata program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized and therefore violates Section 215" of the Patriot Act. [1] Judge Gerard E. Lynch ruled that the "staggering" amount of information collected by the NSA was a violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Patriot Act. [2] This immediately made many NSA surveillance techniques illegal. [16] As a result, the District Court ruling was vacated and that court was instructed to hear any future cases related to the ACLU's complaint. [1]

Subsequent developments

Shortly after the Circuit Court ruling, which made much of the NSA's phone metadata surveillance program illegal under the provisions of the Patriot Act, the U.S. Congress clarified the parameters of the program in the USA Freedom Act, which was passed on June 2, 2015. That statute restored some electronic wiretapping techniques and reinstated several types of NSA authority that had expired under the Patriot Act. [17] [18] However, some surveillance powers previously employed by the NSA were restricted. [16]

According to the ACLU, "following the passage of the USA Freedom Act, the government petitioned FISC [ Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] to allow the NSA to restart the program, arguing that the new law allows it to continue bulk collection during a 180-day transition period. [19] The ACLU argued that the previous ruling did not allow data collection during that transition period, but a motion to this effect was ultimately rejected by the Second Circuit, because it complied with the requirements of the new USA Freedom Act. [20]

Impact

The initial ruling in American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, in which the Southern District of New York ruled that the NSA phone metadata surveillance program was legal while employing no Constitutional arguments, directly conflicted with a different District Court ruling in Klayman v. Obama in which the Fourth Amendment was discussed prominently. [21] 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. [14] [22]

While the later Circuit Court ruling in the Clapper case partially ameliorated the split precedent, it did so on procedural grounds related to provisions in the newly-passed USA Freedom Act, while again avoiding discussions of the conflict between that statute (plus its predecessor the Patriot Act) and the Fourth Amendment. [23] As a result, several commentators noted that courts had thus far largely avoided difficult decisions on whether modern telecommunications surveillance comports with Fourth Amendment requirements for search and seizure and related warrant procedures, [24] [25] or whether older precedents like Smith v. Maryland were still relevant in light of new technologies. [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.

<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">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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William H. Pauley III</span> American federal judge (1952–2021)

William Henry Pauley III was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He was noted for issuing the opinion in ACLU v. Clapper in 2013 concerning the legality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of metadata, as well as sentencing Michael Cohen to three years in prison in 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jameel Jaffer</span> Civil rights lawyer

Jameel Jaffer is a Canadian human rights and civil liberties attorney and the inaugural director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which was created to defend the freedoms of speech and the press in the digital age. The Institute engages in "strategic litigation, research, and public education." Among the Knight Institute's first lawsuits was a successful constitutional challenge to President Trump's practice of blocking critics from his Twitter account.

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">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">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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">USA Freedom Act</span> 2015 U.S. surveillance law

The USA Freedom Act is a U.S. law enacted on June 2, 2015, that restored and modified several provisions of the Patriot Act, which had expired the day before. The act imposes some new limits on the bulk collection of telecommunication metadata on U.S. citizens by American intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency. It also restores authorization for roving wiretaps and tracking lone wolf terrorists. The title of the act is a ten-letter backronym that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2015.

<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.

<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 violated acceptable privacy rights, while others dispute or attempt to provide justification for the expansion of surveillance initiatives under his administration.

<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.

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

Wikimedia Foundation, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al. was 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 American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F. 3d 787 (2nd. Cir., 2015).
  2. 1 2 "U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court". Reuters. May 7, 2015.
  3. ↑ "USA Freedom Act Would Leash the National Security Agency". Businessweek. Bloomberg. October 31, 2013. Archived from the original on November 3, 2013. Retrieved January 18, 2014.
  4. ↑ 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...
  5. 1 2 Greenwald, Glenn (June 6, 2013). "NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily". The Guardian. Retrieved August 16, 2013.
  6. ↑ "13 CIV 3994" (PDF). United States District Court Southern District of New York via ACLU.org.
  7. 1 2 3 American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 959 F. Supp. 2d 724 (S.D.N.Y., 2013).
  8. ↑ Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
  9. ↑ "House Select Intelligence Committee Holds Hearing on Disclosure of National Security Agency Surveillance" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists Intelligence Resource Program. June 18, 2013. Retrieved March 3, 2013.
  10. ↑ "Supplemental Declaration for Professor Edward W. Felten" (PDF). Retrieved March 3, 2014.[ permanent dead link ]
  11. ↑ Ackerman, Spencer (June 18, 2013). "NSA chief claims 'focused' surveillance disrupted more than 50 terror plots Keith Alexander testifies to Congress that programs revealed by Edward Snowden have stopped 'more than 50' attacks". The Guardian . Retrieved March 3, 2013.
  12. ↑ Adam Liptak and Michael S. Schmidt (December 27, 2013). "Judge Upholds N.S.A.'s Bulk Collection of Data on Calls". The New York Times. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
  13. ↑ Horwitz, Sari (December 27, 2013). "NSA collection of phone data is lawful, federal judge rules". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
  14. 1 2 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.
  15. ↑ "ACLU Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging NSA Call-Tracking Program | American Civil Liberties Union". Aclu.org. January 2, 2014. Retrieved February 2, 2014.
  16. 1 2 Jennifer Steinhauer, Charlie Savage and Jonathan Weisman (June 2, 2015). "U.S. Surveillance in Place Since 9/11 Is Sharply Limited". The New York Times. Retrieved June 4, 2015.
  17. ↑ Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman (June 1, 2015). "Key Parts of Patriot Act Expire Temporarily as Senate Moves Toward Limits on Spying". The New York Times. Retrieved June 4, 2015.
  18. ↑ Nakashima, Ellen (June 2, 2015). "Congressional action on NSA is a milestone in the post-9/11 world". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 4, 2015.
  19. ↑ "ACLU v. Clapper - Challenge to NSA Mass Call-Tracking Program". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved October 24, 2021.
  20. ↑ American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 804 F.3d 617 (2nd. Cir., 2015).
  21. ↑ Klayman v. Obama, 957 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.C.D.C., 2013).
  22. ↑ Schmitt, Gary (January 13, 2014). "A Tale of Two Judges". The Weekly Standard. Archived from the original on January 6, 2014. Retrieved March 9, 2014.
  23. ↑ Connare, Erin E. (April 2015). "ACLU v. Clapper: The Fourth Amendment in the Digital Age". Buffalo Law Review. 63 (2): 395–419 – via HeinOnline.
  24. ↑ Robinson, David J.; Wykoff, Julia Kaye (Fall 2015). "NSA Metadata Collection & Storage: An Internment Camp for Citizens' Effects". Southern Illinois University Law Journal. 40 (1): 29–44 – via HeinOnline.
  25. ↑ Graziano, Steven (Spring 2016). "An Unconstitutional Work of Art: Discussing Where the Federal Government's Discrete Intrusions into One's Privacy Become an Unconstitutional Search Through Mosaic Theory". Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology. 17 (2): 977–1012 – via HeinOnline.
  26. ↑ Rapisarda, Mark (2015). "Privacy, Technology, and Surveillance: NSA Bulk Collection and the End of the Smith v. Maryland Era". Gonzaga Law Review. 51 (1): 121–158 – 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.