1313:
do not want the NSA listening to their phone calls or reading their emails. That is really all there is to it. On a straightforward reading, this claim does not implicate the First
Amendment. The problem with asserting only a breach-of-privacy claim is that, because the plaintiffs cannot show that they have been or will be subjected to surveillance personally, they clearly cannot establish standing under the Fourth Amendment or FISA. The plaintiffs concede as much. In an attempt to avoid this problem, the plaintiffs have recast their injuries as a matter of free speech and association, characterized their claim as a violation of the First Amendment, and engaged the First Amendment's relaxed rules on standing. This argument is not novel, but neither is it frivolous; it warrants consideration, analysis, and a full explanation by this court.
781:
1303:— which the plaintiffs label a "well founded belief" and seek to treat as a probability or even a certainty — that the NSA is presently intercepting, or will eventually intercept, communications to or from one or more of these particular plaintiffs, and that such interception would be detrimental to the plaintiffs' clients, sources, or overseas contacts. This is the premise upon which the plaintiffs' entire theory is built. But even though the plaintiffs' beliefs — based on their superior knowledge of their contacts' activities — may be reasonable, the alternative possibility remains that the NSA might
751:
761:
771:
741:
184:
170:
835:
731:
1319:
purposes was to be undertaken only as authorized by specific federal statutory authority. See 50 U.S.C. § 1809. Title III criminalizes the interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications except under certain specified exceptions. See 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f). The statute clearly states that chapter 119 and FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.
28:
811:
823:
1357:
847:
1381:
1369:
1154:
scrutiny. It was never the intent of the
Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that power is never condensed into a single branch of government.
878:
866:
791:
1166:
and Fourth
Amendments of the Constitution, itself. We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent power" must derive from that Constitution.
1318:
Both FISA and Title III expressly prohibit electronic surveillance outside of their statutory frameworks, as set forth in Part I.B.4.b. above. The language used is unequivocal. In enacting FISA, Congress directed that electronic surveillance conducted inside the United States for foreign intelligence
1287:
But the plaintiffs do not — and because of the State
Secrets Doctrine cannot — produce any evidence that any of their own communications have ever been intercepted by the NSA, under the TSP, or without warrants. Instead, they assert a mere belief, which they contend is reasonable and which they label
1165:
The
Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First
1324:
Congress has thus unequivocally declared that FISA and Title III are the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance is permitted. No other authorization can comply with the law. Congress further emphasized this point by criminalizing the undertaking of electronic surveillance not authorized by
1312:
By claiming six causes of action, the plaintiffs have actually engaged in a thinly veiled, though perfectly acceptable, ruse. To call a spade a spade, the plaintiffs have only one claim, namely, breach of privacy, based on a purported violation of the Fourth
Amendment or FISA — i.e., the plaintiffs
1293:
Notably, the plaintiffs do not allege as injury that they personally, either as individuals or associations, anticipate or fear any form of direct reprisal by the government (e.g., the NSA, the
Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, etc.), such as criminal prosecution, deportation,
998:
On
January 31, 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court ruling on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not show that they had been or would be subjected to surveillance personally, and therefore they lacked standing before the Court. The Court emphasized, however, that
1256:
Judge Taylor's unusually casual and surprisingly breezy way of dispatching the Bush administration's legal defense of its NSA warrantless surveillance program.... It's altogether too easy to make disparaging remarks about the quality of the Taylor opinion, which seems almost to have been written
986:
granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling that the TSP specifically involving "international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations" within the United States of
America, was unconstitutional and illegal, and ordered that it be halted immediately. She
1266:
On
October 4, 2006, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal stayed the district court's ruling pending evaluation of the government's appeal. In the three-paragraph ruling, the court explained that it decided to grant the government's motion to stay after balancing the
1257:
more to poke a finger in the President's eye than to please the legal commentariat or even, alas, to impress an appellate panel, although I certainly agree with the many who predict that, while her reasoning is bound not to be embraced, her bottom line is very likely to survive appellate review.
1153:
t is important to note that if the court were to deny standing based on the unsubstantiated minor distinctions drawn by Defendants, the President's actions in warrantless wiretapping, in contravention of FISA, Title II, and the First and Fourth amendments, would be immunized from judicial
1281:
The plaintiffs do not contend — nor could they — that the mere practice of wiretapping (i.e., eavesdropping) is, by itself, unconstitutional, illegal, or even improper. Rather, the plaintiffs object to the NSA's eavesdropping without warrants, specifically FISA warrants with their associated
1183:
The Terrorist Surveillance Program is firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties. The Terrorist Surveillance Program has proven to be one of our most critical and effective tools in the war against terrorism, and we look forward to
1244:. A basic familiarity with this case and with the rules of civil procedure—both of which many of her critics clearly lacked—would reveal that Judge Taylor's opinion was infinitely more sound than the conventional wisdom (thanks to many of these law professors) now holds that it was.
1159:
The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as
1235:
It is true that there are parts of Judge Taylor's opinion which are surprisingly conclusory, but that does not necessarily make it flawed. It is amazing to watch virtually everyone who is trying to attack her opinion do so by making arguments
1032:
foreign intelligence program, since named the Terrorist Surveillance Program, to intercept the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations within the United States, without obtaining
1273:
In its July 6, 2007 decision, the circuit court overturned Judge Taylor's ruling in a 2–1 vote. The majority declined to rule on the legality of the program, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit.
488:
1876:
956:
86:
1125:
wrote a 44-page, 11-part opinion in which she examined the defendant's claim over state secrets, standing, and the President's war time claim. Judge Taylor found that the NSA surveillance Program violated
668:
870:
1196:
President Bush may believe he can authorize spying on Americans without judicial or Congressional approval, but this program is illegal and we intend to put a stop to it... The current
1861:
658:
1214:, several legal experts, including some who agreed with its conclusion, said the decision "overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government's major arguments, used
107:
The ACLU did not have standing to bring the suit against the NSA, because plaintiffs could not present evidence that they were the targets of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program".
1886:
929:
780:
635:
1891:
1866:
1396:
1139:
453:
1528:
1135:
1871:
1053:
967:
relief arguing the TSP was unconstitutional and a violation of federal law. The government argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed or alternatively be granted
1131:
1038:
1395:, 1972, U.S. Supreme Court unanimous decision that established the requirement for warrants in cases involving the domestic use of electronic surveillance on
1459:
815:
1294:
administrative inquiry, civil litigation, or even public exposure. The injuries that these plaintiffs allege are not so direct; they are more amorphous...
1029:
760:
587:
630:
910:
1104:
and on that basis they had a "well founded belief" of having been targeted by the TSP, based on the available public information regarding the program.
1049:
851:
750:
1019:
1901:
1518:"In The Supreme Court of The United States AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, ET AL., Respondents"
999:
FISA and Title III are the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance is permitted and that no other authorization can comply with the law.
770:
740:
683:
516:
506:
1610:
827:
678:
1896:
468:
463:
1391:
1239:
754:
663:
327:
1881:
1006:, without comment, turned down an appeal from the ACLU to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the
730:
1111:
1007:
549:
356:
784:
764:
430:
246:
1606:
948:
941:
903:
839:
332:
224:
1270:
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the government's appeal on January 31, 2007.
1267:
likelihood an appeal would succeed, the potential damage to both sides, and the public's interest in final judicial decree.
1496:
511:
366:
1687:
1644:
794:
361:
1307:
be intercepting, and might never actually intercept, any communication by any of the plaintiffs named in this lawsuit.
1003:
774:
744:
483:
322:
1846:
1795:, 493 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2007) - Sixth Circuit's opinion, vacating and remanding the judgment of the district court
1581:
1542:
1451:
1025:
285:
1436:
1714:
896:
1662:
1566:
1146:
Doctrine. Judge Taylor stayed her own opinion, preventing it from taking effect, pending a September 7 hearing.
183:
169:
952:
937:
734:
174:
1834:
1517:
992:
972:
882:
569:
1100:. They stated in their complaint that they all have a history of communicating with people in or from the
673:
1783:, 438 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Mich. 2006) - District court's ruling granting summary judgment to plaintiffs
790:
1325:
statute in two separate places in the U.S. Code. See 50 U.S.C. § 1809; 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1) & (2)(e).
951:(ACLU) on its own behalf, and on the behalf of three other organizations and five individuals, sued the
478:
1766:
27:
1361:
1218:, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions".
1143:
1061:
960:
701:
592:
1200:
of Americans is a chilling assertion of presidential power that has not been seen since the days of
1097:
1081:
458:
418:
307:
241:
236:
188:
128:
120:
1839:
1827:
1630:
1562:
1482:
1342:
1338:
1215:
1210:
1085:
988:
1816:
1811:
1805:
539:
1625:
1122:
983:
124:
1134:. Furthermore, she concluded that the NSA program violated the Constitution in regard to the
968:
940:(NSA), because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "
564:
554:
317:
312:
219:
1791:
1779:
1734:
1419:
987:
stayed her order pending appeal. She did not rule on the alleged NSA database of domestic
1648:
1373:
1228:
1223:
559:
214:
1822:
1249:
1189:
976:
933:
822:
612:
1806:"ACLU Sues to Stop Illegal Spying on Americans, Saying President Is Not Above the Law"
1611:"ACLU Sues to Stop Illegal Spying on Americans, Saying President Is Not Above the Law"
1368:
1855:
1201:
1127:
1093:
1077:
1069:
1065:
1034:
261:
1197:
544:
398:
1380:
1176:
1101:
1089:
846:
602:
473:
1817:"Summary of Top Ten Myths About the Illegal NSA Spying on Americans" HTML, PDF
1385:
1057:
964:
597:
256:
97:
Appeal turned down by U.S. Supreme Court without comment on February 19, 2008.
1501:"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION"
1500:
928:, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007), is a case decided July 6, 2007, in which the
1073:
1045:
834:
801:
653:
607:
408:
388:
302:
273:
251:
191:
as of 2007, with countries subject to the most data collection shown in red
706:
403:
351:
1299:
Implicit in each of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries is the underlying
877:
435:
413:
393:
378:
297:
209:
1547:
865:
810:
383:
1663:"The Bloggerati response to Judge Taylor's ruling in the NSA Case"
346:
957:
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
1713:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (January 16, 2007).
1543:
DOJ wants NSA wiretapping suits dismissed on state secrets basis
1452:"Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say"
1060:
along with five individuals who are authors and journalists:
1184:
demonstrating on appeal the validity of this vital program.
1110:, along with a separate lawsuit simultaneously filed by the
1248:
Still others, such as Harvard constitutional law professor
1877:
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit cases
925:
American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency
47:
American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency
1231:
argued that critics of Taylor's reasoning were mistaken:
1823:"Two Groups Planning to Sue Over Federal Eavesdropping"
1812:"Statement - Christopher Hitchens, NSA Lawsuit Client"
1645:
Grading the law professors; apologies due Judge Taylor
1567:"The State Secrets Privilege and Separation of Powers"
1688:"Court Allows Warrantless Wiretapping During Appeal"
1439:. usatoday.com. Associated Press. February 19, 2008.
930:
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
38:
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
155:
147:
139:
134:
116:
111:
101:
93:
81:
76:
68:
60:
52:
42:
34:
20:
1626:"Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision"
1483:"NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional"
1414:
1412:
932:held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have
85:Summary judgment for the plaintiffs, 06-CV-10204 (
1582:"Statement on the Terrorist Surveillance Program"
1529:University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
1277:Here are some excerpts of the Court's decision:
1054:National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
1862:United States Constitution Article Two case law
1322:
1316:
1310:
1297:
1291:
1285:
1279:
1254:
1233:
1194:
1181:
1163:
1157:
1151:
1114:, are the first lawsuits to challenge the TSP.
1847:White House statement on district court ruling
636:Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)
1835:"Judge Finds Wiretap Actions Violate the Law"
1481:Bill Mears; Andrea Koppel (August 17, 2006).
1039:Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
904:
8:
1580:President George W. Bush (August 17, 2006).
1037:and therefore outside the parameters of the
1887:George W. Bush administration controversies
1345:, declining to hear an appeal in the case.
1819:, ACLU summary of their full report in PDF
1431:
1429:
1282:limitations and minimization requirements.
911:
897:
164:
17:
1892:American Civil Liberties Union litigation
1867:United States Free Speech Clause case law
1149:Here are some excerpts from her opinion:
982:On August 17, 2006, District Court Judge
1423:, 438 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Mich. 2006).
1020:NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
1872:United States Fourth Amendment case law
1408:
684:Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom
167:
1437:"Court rejects domestic spying appeal"
1028:(or perhaps earlier), the NSA began a
679:Mass surveillance in the United States
1735:6th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision
1050:Council on American–Islamic Relations
631:2005 warrantless surveillance scandal
7:
1462:from the original on August 20, 2006
1392:United States v. U.S. District Court
1694:. Associated Press. October 5, 2006
1661:Tribe, Laurence (August 19, 2006).
14:
1551:. Retrieved on September 8, 2006.
1341:denied the ACLU's petition for a
1252:, took an intermediate position:
1242:never made in the case before her
189:Map of global NSA data collection
1541:Hibbits, Bernard (2006-05-28). "
1450:Harris, Andrew (June 30, 2006).
1379:
1367:
1355:
1112:Center for Constitutional Rights
1008:September 11th terrorist attacks
876:
864:
845:
833:
821:
809:
789:
779:
769:
759:
749:
739:
729:
328:President's Surveillance Program
182:
168:
26:
1624:Adam Liptak (August 19, 2006).
1902:2007 in United States case law
1607:American Civil Liberties Union
1262:Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
949:American Civil Liberties Union
942:Terrorist Surveillance Program
936:to bring the suit against the
333:Terrorist Surveillance Program
1:
1586:News releases for August 2006
1497:New York City Bar Association
1221:Some legal analysts, such as
512:Senate Intelligence Committee
1897:Mass surveillance litigation
1179:issued a statement saying:
975:and the plaintiffs' lack of
1288:a "well founded belief,"...
1004:United States Supreme Court
489:FISA Amendments Act of 2008
484:Protect America Act of 2007
323:Total Information Awareness
1918:
1337:On February 19, 2008, the
1017:
1002:On February 19, 2008, the
286:Tailored Access Operations
947:On January 17, 2006, the
659:Surveillance of reporters
517:National Security Council
106:
25:
1882:National Security Agency
1715:"Oral Argument Calendar"
1362:United States portal
1188:ACLU Executive Director
953:National Security Agency
938:National Security Agency
175:National Security Agency
993:State Secrets Privilege
973:State Secrets Privilege
1327:
1321:
1315:
1309:
1296:
1290:
1284:
1259:
1246:
1206:
1186:
1168:
1162:
1156:
1118:District court opinion
1048:include the ACLU, the
674:Insider Threat Program
1745:552 U.S. 1179 (2008).
479:Homeland Security Act
373:Databases, tools etc.
1808:, ACLU press release
1609:(January 17, 2006).
1329:(Footnotes omitted)
1144:Separation of powers
1062:Christopher Hitchens
961:declaratory judgment
669:UN diplomatic spying
1771:, filed by the ACLU
1692:The Washington Post
1374:Politics portal
1098:New York University
1082:Stanford University
989:call detail records
540:Hepting v. AT&T
459:Privacy Act of 1974
237:Upstream collection
129:Julia Smith Gibbons
121:Alice M. Batchelder
1840:The New York Times
1828:The New York Times
1651:, August 22, 2006.
1631:The New York Times
1563:Fordham Law Review
1499:(April 28, 2006).
1458:. Bloomberg L. P.
1343:writ of certiorari
1339:U.S. Supreme Court
1333:U.S. Supreme Court
1216:circular reasoning
1211:The New York Times
1086:Hoover Institution
1026:September 11, 2001
550:Clapper v. Amnesty
425:GCHQ collaboration
419:BOUNDLESSINFORMANT
94:Subsequent history
1130:in regard to the
984:Anna Diggs Taylor
921:
920:
163:
162:
125:Ronald Lee Gilman
1909:
1746:
1743:
1737:
1732:
1726:
1725:
1723:
1721:
1710:
1704:
1703:
1701:
1699:
1684:
1678:
1677:
1675:
1673:
1658:
1652:
1642:
1636:
1635:
1621:
1615:
1614:
1603:
1597:
1596:
1594:
1592:
1577:
1571:
1570:
1558:
1552:
1539:
1533:
1532:
1531:. April 1, 2009.
1525:law.berkeley.edu
1522:
1514:
1508:
1507:
1505:
1493:
1487:
1486:
1478:
1472:
1471:
1469:
1467:
1447:
1441:
1440:
1433:
1424:
1416:
1397:Fourth Amendment
1384:
1383:
1372:
1371:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1140:Fourth Amendment
969:summary judgment
913:
906:
899:
881:
880:
869:
868:
850:
849:
838:
837:
826:
825:
814:
813:
793:
783:
773:
763:
753:
743:
733:
565:Wikimedia v. NSA
555:Klayman v. Obama
454:Safe Streets Act
186:
172:
165:
112:Court membership
56:January 31, 2007
30:
18:
1917:
1916:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1852:
1851:
1843:, Aug. 18, 2006
1831:, Jan. 17, 2006
1802:
1759:
1757:Court documents
1754:
1749:
1744:
1740:
1733:
1729:
1719:
1717:
1712:
1711:
1707:
1697:
1695:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1671:
1669:
1660:
1659:
1655:
1649:Glenn Greenwald
1643:
1639:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1590:
1588:
1579:
1578:
1574:
1560:
1559:
1555:
1540:
1536:
1520:
1516:
1515:
1511:
1503:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1480:
1479:
1475:
1465:
1463:
1449:
1448:
1444:
1435:
1434:
1427:
1417:
1410:
1406:
1378:
1366:
1356:
1354:
1351:
1335:
1264:
1229:Glenn Greenwald
1173:
1136:First Amendment
1120:
1022:
1016:
917:
888:
887:
875:
863:
844:
832:
820:
808:
720:
712:
711:
697:
689:
688:
649:
641:
640:
626:
618:
617:
583:
575:
574:
560:ACLU v. Clapper
530:
522:
521:
502:
494:
493:
449:
441:
440:
200:
192:
173:
12:
11:
5:
1915:
1913:
1905:
1904:
1899:
1894:
1889:
1884:
1879:
1874:
1869:
1864:
1854:
1853:
1850:
1849:
1844:
1832:
1820:
1814:
1809:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1784:
1772:
1758:
1755:
1753:
1752:External links
1750:
1748:
1747:
1738:
1727:
1705:
1679:
1653:
1637:
1616:
1598:
1572:
1569:. fordham.edu.
1561:Amanda Frost;
1553:
1534:
1509:
1488:
1473:
1442:
1425:
1407:
1405:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1388:
1386:Law portal
1376:
1364:
1350:
1347:
1334:
1331:
1263:
1260:
1250:Laurence Tribe
1190:Anthony Romero
1172:
1169:
1119:
1116:
1018:Main article:
1015:
1012:
955:(NSA) in the
919:
918:
916:
915:
908:
901:
893:
890:
889:
886:
885:
873:
860:
859:
855:
854:
842:
830:
818:
805:
804:
798:
797:
787:
777:
767:
757:
747:
737:
726:
725:
721:
718:
717:
714:
713:
710:
709:
704:
698:
695:
694:
691:
690:
687:
686:
681:
676:
671:
666:
661:
656:
650:
647:
646:
643:
642:
639:
638:
633:
627:
624:
623:
620:
619:
616:
615:
613:Edward Snowden
610:
605:
600:
595:
590:
588:William Binney
584:
582:Whistleblowers
581:
580:
577:
576:
573:
572:
567:
562:
557:
552:
547:
542:
537:
531:
528:
527:
524:
523:
520:
519:
514:
509:
503:
500:
499:
496:
495:
492:
491:
486:
481:
476:
471:
466:
461:
456:
450:
447:
446:
443:
442:
439:
438:
433:
427:
426:
422:
421:
416:
411:
406:
401:
396:
391:
386:
381:
375:
374:
370:
369:
364:
359:
354:
349:
343:
342:
338:
337:
336:
335:
325:
320:
315:
310:
305:
300:
294:
293:
289:
288:
282:
281:
277:
276:
270:
269:
265:
264:
259:
254:
249:
244:
239:
233:
232:
228:
227:
222:
217:
212:
206:
205:
201:
198:
197:
194:
193:
187:
179:
178:
161:
160:
157:
153:
152:
149:
145:
144:
141:
137:
136:
132:
131:
118:
117:Judges sitting
114:
113:
109:
108:
104:
103:
99:
98:
95:
91:
90:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
70:
66:
65:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
44:
43:Full case name
40:
39:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1914:
1903:
1900:
1898:
1895:
1893:
1890:
1888:
1885:
1883:
1880:
1878:
1875:
1873:
1870:
1868:
1865:
1863:
1860:
1859:
1857:
1848:
1845:
1842:
1841:
1836:
1833:
1830:
1829:
1824:
1821:
1818:
1815:
1813:
1810:
1807:
1804:
1803:
1799:
1794:
1793:
1788:
1785:
1782:
1781:
1776:
1773:
1770:
1769:
1764:
1761:
1760:
1756:
1751:
1742:
1739:
1736:
1731:
1728:
1716:
1709:
1706:
1693:
1689:
1683:
1680:
1668:
1667:Balkinization
1664:
1657:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1641:
1638:
1633:
1632:
1627:
1620:
1617:
1612:
1608:
1602:
1599:
1587:
1583:
1576:
1573:
1568:
1564:
1557:
1554:
1550:
1549:
1544:
1538:
1535:
1530:
1526:
1519:
1513:
1510:
1506:. nycbar.org.
1502:
1498:
1492:
1489:
1484:
1477:
1474:
1461:
1457:
1456:Bloomberg.com
1453:
1446:
1443:
1438:
1432:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:
1415:
1413:
1409:
1403:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1387:
1382:
1377:
1375:
1370:
1365:
1363:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1346:
1344:
1340:
1332:
1330:
1326:
1320:
1314:
1308:
1306:
1302:
1295:
1289:
1283:
1278:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1261:
1258:
1253:
1251:
1245:
1243:
1241:
1232:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1219:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1208:According to
1205:
1203:
1202:Richard Nixon
1199:
1193:
1191:
1185:
1180:
1178:
1170:
1167:
1161:
1155:
1150:
1147:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:statutory law
1124:
1117:
1115:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1094:Barnett Rubin
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:Larry Diamond
1075:
1071:
1070:Tara McKelvey
1067:
1066:James Bamford
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1027:
1021:
1013:
1011:
1009:
1005:
1000:
996:
994:
991:, citing the
990:
985:
980:
978:
974:
971:based on the
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
945:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
926:
914:
909:
907:
902:
900:
895:
894:
892:
891:
884:
879:
874:
872:
867:
862:
861:
857:
856:
853:
848:
843:
841:
836:
831:
829:
824:
819:
817:
812:
807:
806:
803:
800:
799:
796:
792:
788:
786:
782:
778:
776:
772:
768:
766:
762:
758:
756:
752:
748:
746:
742:
738:
736:
732:
728:
727:
724:United States
723:
722:
719:Collaboration
716:
715:
708:
705:
703:
700:
699:
693:
692:
685:
682:
680:
677:
675:
672:
670:
667:
665:
664:Mail tracking
662:
660:
657:
655:
652:
651:
645:
644:
637:
634:
632:
629:
628:
622:
621:
614:
611:
609:
606:
604:
601:
599:
596:
594:
591:
589:
586:
585:
579:
578:
571:
568:
566:
563:
561:
558:
556:
553:
551:
548:
546:
543:
541:
538:
536:
533:
532:
526:
525:
518:
515:
513:
510:
508:
505:
504:
498:
497:
490:
487:
485:
482:
480:
477:
475:
472:
470:
467:
465:
462:
460:
457:
455:
452:
451:
445:
444:
437:
434:
432:
429:
428:
424:
423:
420:
417:
415:
412:
410:
407:
405:
402:
400:
397:
395:
392:
390:
387:
385:
382:
380:
377:
376:
372:
371:
368:
365:
363:
360:
358:
355:
353:
350:
348:
345:
344:
340:
339:
334:
331:
330:
329:
326:
324:
321:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
304:
301:
299:
296:
295:
291:
290:
287:
284:
283:
279:
278:
275:
272:
271:
267:
266:
263:
260:
258:
255:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
240:
238:
235:
234:
230:
229:
226:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
211:
208:
207:
203:
202:
196:
195:
190:
185:
181:
180:
176:
171:
166:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
135:Case opinions
133:
130:
126:
122:
119:
115:
110:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
82:Prior history
80:
75:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
48:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
1838:
1826:
1790:
1786:
1778:
1774:
1767:
1762:
1741:
1730:
1718:. Retrieved
1708:
1696:. Retrieved
1691:
1682:
1672:September 2,
1670:. Retrieved
1666:
1656:
1640:
1629:
1619:
1601:
1591:September 2,
1589:. Retrieved
1585:
1575:
1556:
1546:
1537:
1524:
1512:
1491:
1476:
1466:September 2,
1464:. Retrieved
1455:
1445:
1418:
1390:
1336:
1328:
1323:
1317:
1311:
1304:
1300:
1298:
1292:
1286:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1255:
1247:
1237:
1234:
1222:
1220:
1209:
1207:
1198:surveillance
1195:
1187:
1182:
1174:
1164:
1158:
1152:
1148:
1123:Judge Taylor
1121:
1107:
1106:
1043:
1023:
1001:
997:
981:
946:
924:
923:
922:
593:Thomas Drake
570:US v. Moalin
545:Jewel v. NSA
534:
501:Institutions
399:TRAFFICTHIEF
177:surveillance
77:Case history
72:493 F.3d 644
64:July 6, 2007
46:
15:
1800:Other links
1792:ACLU v. NSA
1780:ACLU v. NSA
1768:ACLU v. NSA
1720:January 16,
1613:. aclu.org.
1420:ACLU v. NSA
1301:possibility
1177:White House
1108:ACLU v. NSA
1102:Middle East
1090:Afghanistan
625:Publication
603:Thomas Tamm
535:ACLU v. NSA
474:Patriot Act
448:Legislation
308:Trailblazer
148:Concurrence
21:ACLU v. NSA
1856:Categories
1698:October 6,
1485:. cnn.com.
1404:References
1238:which the
1227:columnist
1058:Greenpeace
1046:plaintiffs
1030:classified
1014:Background
965:injunctive
959:, seeking
598:Mark Klein
341:Since 2007
313:Turbulence
292:Since 2001
280:Since 1998
268:Since 1990
257:ThinThread
231:Since 1978
143:Batchelder
87:E.D. Mich.
1763:Complaint
1074:democracy
944:" (TSP).
802:Five Eyes
654:Cablegate
608:Russ Tice
409:XKeyscore
389:Main Core
357:Stateroom
303:STORMBREW
274:RAMPART-A
252:Main Core
1565:(2007).
1460:Archived
1399:grounds.
1349:See also
1192:stated:
1171:Reaction
1092:scholar
1084:and the
1076:scholar
1035:warrants
977:standing
934:standing
745:CYBERCOM
707:Metadata
696:Concepts
529:Lawsuits
431:MUSCULAR
404:DISHFIRE
352:Dropmire
318:Genoa II
247:FAIRVIEW
220:SHAMROCK
204:Pre-1978
199:Programs
140:Majority
69:Citation
648:Related
436:Tempora
414:ICREACH
394:MAINWAY
379:PINWALE
362:Bullrun
298:OAKSTAR
242:BLARNEY
215:MINARET
210:ECHELON
156:Dissent
151:Gibbons
102:Holding
61:Decided
1787:Ruling
1775:Ruling
1548:JURIST
1142:, and
1088:, and
1056:, and
1052:, the
1024:After
702:SIGINT
384:MARINA
367:MYSTIC
225:PROMIS
159:Gilman
127:, and
53:Argued
1521:(PDF)
1504:(PDF)
1224:Salon
1160:well.
858:Other
347:PRISM
262:Genoa
35:Court
1722:2007
1700:2006
1674:2006
1593:2006
1468:2006
1175:The
1132:FISA
1044:The
963:and
871:DGSE
852:GCSB
828:GCHQ
816:CSEC
507:FISC
469:ECPA
464:FISA
1647:by
1545:",
1305:not
1240:DoJ
1096:of
1080:of
883:BND
840:ASD
795:IAO
785:DHS
775:CIA
765:FBI
755:DOJ
735:CSS
1858::
1837:,
1825:,
1789::
1777::
1765::
1690:.
1665:.
1628:.
1584:.
1527:.
1523:.
1454:.
1428:^
1411:^
1138:,
1072:,
1068:,
1064:,
1041:.
1010:.
995:.
979:.
123:,
1724:.
1702:.
1676:.
1634:.
1595:.
1470:.
1204:.
912:e
905:t
898:v
89:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
