Judge Rules NSA Phone Surveillance Is Legal. Is a Supreme Court Intervention Inevitable?

Yes, you’re not crazy — it was ruled “likely unconstitutional” last week. The conflicting rulings will continue their creep through the legal system, and possibly the Supreme Court.

National Journal
Dustin Volz
Dec. 27, 2013, 8:03 a.m.

A fed­er­al judge in New York has deemed the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s bulk col­lec­tion of phone re­cords leg­al on grounds it is a ne­ces­sary and ef­fect­ive re­sponse to glob­al ter­ror­ist threats.

U.S. Dis­trict Court Judge Wil­li­am Paul­ey said the agency’s phone metadata col­lec­tion “rep­res­ents the Gov­ern­ment’s counter-punch” to ter­ror­ist threats ob­served since Sept. 11, 2001, by “con­nect­ing frag­men­ted and fleet­ing com­mu­nic­a­tions to re-con­struct and elim­in­ate al-Qaeda’s ter­ror net­work.” Paul­ey, cit­ing the con­tro­ver­sial sec­tion 215 of the Pat­ri­ot Act, gran­ted the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment’s mo­tion to dis­miss a chal­lenge brought to the courts by the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on and sim­il­ar groups after de­tails of the pro­grams came to light fol­low­ing dis­clos­ures from Ed­ward Snowden.

The 54-page rul­ing comes less than two weeks after D.C. Dis­trict Court Judge Richard Le­on is­sued an opin­ion blast­ing the NSA’s bulk data col­lec­tion as “al­most Or­wellian” and likely un­con­sti­tu­tion­al. The dif­fer­ing rul­ings make it more likely that an Ap­peals Court — and, even­tu­ally, the Su­preme Court — will de­term­ine the fate of the agency’s sur­veil­lance prac­tices. Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­wo­man Di­anne Fein­stein, D-Cal­if., said after the re­lease of the Le­on’s rul­ing that the Su­preme Court should ul­ti­mately de­cide the leg­al­ity of the NSA’s pro­grams.

But Paul­ey, a Clin­ton ap­pointee, said “the ques­tion of wheth­er that pro­gram should be con­duc­ted is for the oth­er two co­ordin­ate branches of Gov­ern­ment to de­cide.” He de­fen­ded the sweep­ing grabs of mil­lions of phone re­cords as ne­ces­sary be­cause “the cost of miss­ing such a thread (re­veal­ing of a ter­ror­ist plot) can be hor­rif­ic.”

“The right to be free from searches and seizures is fun­da­ment­al, but not ab­so­lute,” Paul­ey wrote. “Wheth­er the Fourth Amend­ment pro­tects bulk tele­phony metadata is ul­ti­mately a ques­tion of reas­on­able­ness.”

He con­tin­ued:

Every day, people vol­un­tar­ily sur­render per­son­al and seem­ingly-private in­form­a­tion to trans-na­tion­al cor­por­a­tions, which ex­ploit that data for profit. Few think twice about it, even though it is far more in­trus­ive than bulk tele­phony metadata col­lec­tion. There is no evid­ence that the gov­ern­ment has used any of bulk tele­phony metadata it col­lec­ted for any pur­pose oth­er than in­vest­ig­at­ing and dis­rupt­ing ter­ror­ist at­tacks. While there have been un­in­ten­tion­al vi­ol­a­tions of guidelines, those ap­pear to stem from hu­man er­ror and the in­cred­ibly com­plex com­puter pro­grams that sup­port this vi­tal tool. And once de­tec­ted, those vi­ol­a­tions were self-re­por­ted and stopped. The bulk tele­phony metadata col­lec­tion pro­gram is sub­ject to ex­ec­ut­ive and con­gres­sion­al over­sight, as well as con­tinu­al mon­it­or­ing by a ded­ic­ated group of judges who serve on the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court.

The ACLU said it plans to ap­peal the de­cision.

“We are ex­tremely dis­ap­poin­ted with this de­cision, which mis­in­ter­prets the rel­ev­ant stat­utes, un­der­states the pri­vacy im­plic­a­tions of the gov­ern­ment’s sur­veil­lance, and mis­ap­plies a nar­row and out­dated pre­ced­ent to read away core con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­tec­tions,” said Jameel Jaf­fer, ACLU deputy leg­al dir­ect­or. “As an­oth­er fed­er­al judge and the pres­id­ent’s own re­view group con­cluded last week, the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s bulk col­lec­tion of tele­phony data con­sti­tutes a ser­i­ous in­va­sion of Amer­ic­ans’ pri­vacy.”

Pres­id­ent Obama said at his end-year news con­fer­ence that he will “make a pretty defin­it­ive state­ment about all of this” in Janu­ary, al­though he in­dic­ated ser­i­ous over­haul of the NSA was un­likely. Con­gress has also in­tro­duced a num­ber of bills aimed to rein in the NSA’s bulk data col­lec­tion tech­niques.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4631) }}

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
1 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
1 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
1 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
1 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.