Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

Last updated
Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA
DistrictCourtMarylandSeal.png
Court United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Full case nameWikimedia Foundation, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al.
Defendant National Security Agency / Central Security Service, United States Department of Justice, Adm. Michael S. Rogers in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Daniel R. Coats in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence, and Jefferson B. Sessions III in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States
Counsel for plaintiff(s) American Civil Liberties Union, Cooley LLP
Plaintiff(s) Wikimedia Foundation, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, PEN American Center, Global Fund for Women, The Nation , Rutherford Institute, Washington Office on Latin America
Citation(s)No. 15-2560
Case history
Prior action(s)Dismissal of all plaintiffs' complaints by the US District Court for the District of Maryland
Subsequent action(s)Dismissal appealed by the Wikimedia Foundation
Affirmation of dismissal of 8 of the 9 plaintiffs' complaints (Wikimedia excluded) by US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Dismissal of Wikimedia Foundation's allegations concurrently vacated and remanded
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting T. S. Ellis III [1]

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. [2] [3] [4] 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. [5]

Contents

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland as the NSA is based in Fort Meade, Maryland. [6] The suit was dismissed in October 2015 by Judge T. S. Ellis III; this decision was appealed four months later to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by the Wikimedia Foundation. [7] The Court of Appeals found that the dismissal was valid for all of the plaintiffs except the Foundation, whose allegations the court found "plausible" enough to have legal standing for the case to be remanded to the lower court. [8]

The original plaintiffs besides the Wikimedia Foundation were the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, the PEN American Center, the Global Fund for Women, The Nation magazine, [9] the Rutherford Institute, and the Washington Office on Latin America. [5] [10]

Background

NSA slide referring to Wikipedia as a surveillance target Why are we interested in HTTP.png
NSA slide referring to Wikipedia as a surveillance target

Upstream surveillance was first revealed in May 2013 by Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst. [11] A previous challenge by the ACLU, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA , failed for lack of standing. In the light of some of the leaks by Snowden, which included an above Top Secret NSA slide that specifically referred to Wikipedia as a target for HTTP surveillance, the Wikimedia Foundation pushed forward with a legal complaint against the NSA for violating its users' First and Fourth Amendment rights. [12]

Since Clapper, the government itself has confirmed many of the key facts about NSA's Upstream surveillance, including that it conducts suspicionless searches. [13] ACLU attorney Patrick Toomey noted the lawsuit is particularly relevant as the plaintiffs engage in "hundreds of billions of international communications" annually. Any program of Upstream surveillance must necessarily sweep up a substantial part of these communications. [13] [14]

Litigation

On August 6, 2015, the defendants (National Security Agency, et al.) brought a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs have not plausibly shown that they have been injured by Upstream collection of data and thus lack standing to sue. In response, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of libraries and booksellers. [15] Both sides presented oral arguments at a hearing on September 25, 2015. [16]

On October 23, 2015, the District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the suit on grounds of standing. US District Judge T. S. Ellis III ruled that the plaintiffs could not plausibly prove they were subject to Upstream surveillance, echoing the 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International US. [17] [18] The Wikimedia Foundation said it expected to appeal the decision. The Foundation said its complaint had merit, and that there was no question that Upstream surveillance captured the communications of both its user community and the Wikimedia Foundation itself. [19] The Electronic Frontier Foundation, who had filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, said it was perverse to dismiss a suit for lack of proof (standing) when the surveillance program complained of was secret, and urged federal courts to tackle the serious constitutional issues that Upstream surveillance presents. [20] The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on February 17, 2016. [21]

On May 23, 2017, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal by the lower court of Wikimedia's complaints. [22] [23] The Court of Appeals ruled that the Foundation's allegations of the NSA's Fourth Amendment violations were plausible enough to "survive a facial challenge to standing", finding that the potential harm done by the NSA's collection of private data was not speculative. [7] [22] The court thereby remanded the suit by the Foundation and ordered the District Court of Maryland to continue the proceedings. [8] The court inversely affirmed the dismissal by Ellis of the suits by the other plaintiffs; in its finding the court noted that the non-Wikimedia plaintiffs had not made a strong enough case that their operations were affected by Upstream's scope. [7] [22]

On December 16, 2019, the District Court held that the Wikimedia Foundation did not have standing to proceed with its claims. On February 14, 2020, the Wikimedia Foundation filed a notice of appeal in this case before the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. [24] The appeal was heard in March 2021 [25] and once again dismissed in September of the same year. [26]

In February 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. [27]

See also

Related Research Articles

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">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" — 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, 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).

<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

37°47′07″N122°23′48″W

CCR v. Bush is a legal action by the Center for Constitutional Rights against the George W. Bush administration, challenging the National Security Agency's (NSA's) surveillance of people within the United States, including the interception of CCR emails without first securing a warrant. The lawsuit was filed on January 17, 2006. The center's lawyers argued that the warrantless wiretap program was: "... illegal because it lacks judicial approval or statutory authorization,"

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

Jameel Jaffer is a 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.

The Wikimedia Foundation has been involved in several lawsuits. They have won some and lost several others.

<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">Upstream collection</span> Term used by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States

Upstream collection is a term used by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States for intercepting telephone and Internet traffic from the Internet backbone, meaning major Internet cables and switches, both domestic and foreign. Besides the Upstream collection, NSA also gathers information from Internet communications through arrangements with Internet companies under the program codenamed PRISM. Both the Upstream programs and PRISM are part of the Special Source Operations (SSO) division, which is responsible for collection in cooperation with corporate partners.

<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.

Same-sex marriage in Missouri has been legal since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down state bans on marriages between two people of the same sex on June 26, 2015. Prior to the court ruling, the state recognized same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions pursuant to a state court ruling in October 2014, and certain jurisdictions of the state performed same-sex marriage despite a statewide ban.

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the use of law enforcement surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 and the state secrets privilege defense. The case stems from a 2011 class action lawsuit filed against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) related to one of its surveillance operations. In August 2012, the district court dismissed the case on the basis of the FBI's invocation of state secrets privilege. The Ninth Circuit overturned this ruling in part in 2019, ruling that FISA precluded the defendants from invoking the state secrets defense. However, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in a unanimous decision in March 2022, stating that FISA does not override the state secrets defense.

<i>D.C. and Maryland v. Trump</i> Lawsuit by Maryland and District of Columbia against Donald Trump concerning emoluments

D.C. and Maryland v. Trump was a lawsuit filed on June 12, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs, the U.S. state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, had violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution by accepting gifts from foreign governments. The lawsuit was filed by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.

Elliott J. Schuchardt is an American civil liberties activist.

References

  1. ↑ "Wikimedia v. NSA - D. Md. Opinion | American Civil Liberties Union". Aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union . Retrieved 2015-10-26.
  2. ↑ "Wikimedia v. NSA: Challenge to Mass Surveillance Under the FISA Amendments Act". aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union.
  3. ↑ Paulson, Michelle (10 March 2015). "Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against the NSA to challenge Upstream mass surveillance". Wikimedia Foundation . Retrieved 10 March 2015.
  4. ↑ Wales, Jimmy; Tretikov, Lila (2015-03-10). "Stop Spying on Wikipedia Users". New York Times. Retrieved 10 March 2015.
  5. 1 2 "ACLU, Wikimedia file lawsuit challenging NSA mass surveillance". Reuters. Reuters. 2015-03-10. Retrieved 2015-03-10.
  6. ↑ David Ingram, NSA sued by Wikimedia, rights groups over mass surveillance, Reuters (March 10, 2015).
  7. 1 2 3 Savage, Charlie (23 May 2017). "Federal Court Revives Wikimedia's Challenge to N.S.A. Surveillance". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 May 2017.
  8. 1 2 Nelson, Steven (23 May 2017). "Appeals Court: Wikimedia Can Fight NSA's 'Not Speculative' Internet Surveillance". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 24 May 2017.
  9. ↑ "Why 'The Nation' Is Suing the Federal Government". thenation.com. The Nation. 31 March 2015.
  10. ↑ Lomas, Natasha (10 March 2015). "Wikimedia Sues NSA Over Mass Surveillance". TechCrunch . Retrieved 11 March 2015.
  11. ↑ Schneider, Marc (10 March 2015). "Wikimedia vs NSA: ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Spy Agency's 'Upstream Surveillance'". billboard.com. Billboard.
  12. ↑ Cohn, Carolyn. "Wikipedia feels 'targeted' by NSA, co-founder says". reuters.com. Reuters.
  13. 1 2 Geoff Brigham; Michelle Paulson (30 March 2015). "Wikimedia v. NSA: Standing and the Fight for Free Speech and Privacy". just security.org. Just Security.
  14. ↑ Gass, Nick (10 March 2015). "Wikimedia sues NSA, DOJ over mass surveillance". Politico. Retrieved 11 March 2015.
  15. ↑ Crocker, Andrew (3 September 2015). "EFF Asks Court on Behalf of Libraries and Booksellers to Recognize Readers' Right to Be Free of NSA's Online Surveillance". Electronic Frontier Foundation.
  16. ↑ Nicky Woolf (25 September 2015). "Court hears first arguments in case challenging bulk data collection by NSA". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 October 2015.
  17. ↑ Farivar, Cyrus (23 October 2015). "Judge tosses Wikimedia's anti-NSA lawsuit because Wikipedia isn't big enough". Ars Technica .
  18. ↑ "Wikimedia v. NSA - D. MD. Opinion". ACLU.
  19. ↑ Michelle Paulson, Geoff Brigham (23 October 2015). "District court grants government's motion to dismiss Wikimedia v. NSA, appeal expected". Wikimedia Foundation.
  20. ↑ Rumold, Mark (29 October 2015). "Wikimedia v. NSA: Another Court Blinds Itself to Mass NSA Surveillance". Electronic Frontier Foundation.
  21. ↑ "Appeal No. 15-2560. Brief for plaintiffs–appellants" (PDF). ACLU. February 17, 2016. Retrieved March 5, 2016.
  22. 1 2 3 Buatti, Jim; Palmer, Aeryn (23 May 2017). "Victory at the Fourth Circuit: Court of Appeals allows Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA to proceed". Wikimedia Blog. Retrieved 23 May 2017.
  23. ↑ Stempel, Jonathan (23 May 2017). "Wikipedia can pursue NSA surveillance lawsuit: U.S. appeals court". Reuters. Retrieved 24 May 2017.
  24. ↑ Buatti, Jim; Palmer, Aeryn (17 December 2019). "District Court rules for government in Wikimedia Foundation's mass surveillance case against the NSA". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 28 January 2020.
  25. ↑ Remote Oral Arguments (Panel III) - 2:00PM Friday 3/12/2021. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. March 12, 2021. Event occurs at 10:30 – via YouTube.
  26. ↑ Singh, Kanishka (2021-09-16). "U.S. court upholds dismissal of lawsuit against NSA on 'state secrets' grounds". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-09-20.
  27. ↑ Chung, Andrew (21 February 2023). "U.S. Supreme Court snubs Wikipedia bid to challenge NSA surveillance". Reuters . Retrieved 22 February 2023.
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.