Patriot Act In Uncharted Legal Territory As Deadline Approaches

Will the Patriot Act mean something different if lawmakers renew it now that they know the full extent of the NSA’s spying?

National Journal
Brendan Sasso
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Brendan Sasso
May 10, 2015, 4 p.m.

Can Con­gress over­rule a court de­cision without chan­ging a word in the law?

That’s the ques­tion that law­makers are wrest­ling with after a fed­er­al ap­peals court ruled last week that a con­tro­ver­sial Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency sur­veil­lance pro­gram is il­leg­al. The U.S. Court of Ap­peals for the 2nd Cir­cuit didn’t ad­dress the claims that the pro­gram vi­ol­ates con­sti­tu­tion­al pri­vacy rights. But the judges did rule that the NSA’s mass col­lec­tion of mil­lions of U.S. phone re­cords over­steps the au­thor­ity that Con­gress gave the agency un­der the Pat­ri­ot Act.

Al­though Con­gress has re­newed the Pat­ri­ot Act sev­er­al times since first passing it in 2001, most law­makers had no idea how the NSA was us­ing the powers, the court found. “Con­gress can­not reas­on­ably be said to have rat­i­fied a pro­gram of which many mem­bers of Con­gress—and all mem­bers of the pub­lic—were not aware,” Judge Ger­ard E. Lynch wrote in a un­an­im­ous de­cision for the court.

The key pro­vi­sion of the Pat­ri­ot Act, Sec­tion 215, is set to ex­pire in just a few weeks. Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell and oth­er top Re­pub­lic­ans are push­ing for a clean reau­thor­iz­a­tion of the sur­veil­lance law, ar­guing that the NSA pro­gram is crit­ic­al for thwart­ing ter­ror­ist at­tacks.

(RE­LATED: Fed­er­al Ap­peals Court Rules NSA Spy­ing Il­leg­al)

Ex­tend­ing the law this time might give it a new mean­ing be­cause, in the wake of Ed­ward Snowden’s leaks of clas­si­fied doc­u­ments, law­makers would un­der­stand for the first time what they were ac­tu­ally vot­ing on.

“If they reau­thor­ize the pro­gram, the basis on which the 2nd Cir­cuit re­jec­ted the pro­gram fails, or at least is sub­stan­tially un­der­mined and would have to be re-lit­ig­ated from scratch,” said Stew­art Baker, a part­ner at the law firm Step­toe & John­son and a former gen­er­al coun­sel for the NSA.

Con­gress will either re­new the pro­gram, change it, or let it ex­pire. No mat­ter which op­tion it chooses, the court’s de­cision will be ir­rel­ev­ant in a few weeks, Baker said.

“This was a 97-page law re­view art­icle,” he said. “Its sig­ni­fic­ance is close to zero.”

Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­man Richard Burr, a North Car­o­lina Re­pub­lic­an who also is­push­ing for a clean re­new­al of the Pat­ri­ot Act, ar­gued that the court de­cision is wrong now, and Con­gress doesn’t have to do any­thing to ad­dress it.

(RE­LATED: The Sen­ate’s GOP Lead­er­ship Is Dead-Set on a Com­plete Pat­ri­ot Act Ex­ten­sion)

“I think the stat­utory lan­guage today al­lows the NSA to do ex­actly what they’re do­ing,” he said, adding that the is­sue will likely end up at the Su­preme Court. “I have a very tough time think­ing the Su­preme Court would look at this law”¦ and come to the con­clu­sion that we didn’t em­power the NSA to do bulk col­lec­tion.”

But the NSA’s crit­ics ar­gue that it won’t be so easy for Con­gress to ig­nore the court’s rul­ing. Words have mean­ing, they say, and Con­gress can’t stretch words to mean something new.

“Words don’t just mean whatever the NSA says they mean,” said Al­varo Bedoya, the ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Cen­ter on Pri­vacy & Tech­no­logy at Geor­getown Law Cen­ter. If law­makers want to au­thor­ize the mass col­lec­tion of Amer­ic­ans’ phone re­cords, they would have to write new lan­guage for that, he ar­gued.

Sec­tion 215 of the Pat­ri­ot Act cur­rently gives the NSA the au­thor­ity to seize any “tan­gible thing” that is “rel­ev­ant” to an in­tel­li­gence in­vest­ig­a­tion. The gov­ern­ment ar­gues that all U.S. phone num­bers, call times, and call dur­a­tions are “rel­ev­ant” be­cause the agency uses them to com­pile a vast data­base that it then sifts through for ter­ror­ism con­nec­tions.

(RE­LATED: Mitch Mc­Con­nell Re­fuses to Budge on Pat­ri­ot Act After Court Rul­ing Im­per­ils NSA Spy­ing)

But the court said pri­vacy ad­voc­ates are right to be­lieve that “such an ex­pans­ive concept of ‘rel­ev­ance’ is un­pre­ced­en­ted and un­war­ran­ted.”

Neema Guliani, a le­gis­lat­ive coun­sel for the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on, which brought the case be­fore the 2nd Cir­cuit, said the court de­cision shows that the Pat­ri­ot Act can’t be used to jus­ti­fy mass sur­veil­lance. “The court was pretty blunt in say­ing the plain lan­guage of the stat­ute is clear and that can’t be su­per­seded,” she said.

She also ar­gued that it’s ex­tremely un­likely that a ma­jor­ity of Con­gress will agree to reau­thor­ize the Pat­ri­ot Act without sub­stan­tial re­forms. The House is set to vote this week on the USA Free­dom Act, which would ex­tend the Pat­ri­ot Act but keep the bulk data­bases of phone re­cords out of the hands of the NSA.

The court’s de­cision has giv­en the NSA’s crit­ics in Con­gress a new boost of mo­mentum, Guliani ar­gued. “I would be sur­prised if, giv­en the Second Cir­cuit de­cision, mem­bers of Con­gress were will­ing to reau­thor­ize pro­grams that in­de­pend­ent over­sight bod­ies and the courts have now found were a vi­ol­a­tion of the law,” she said.

But Sen. Rand Paul, who voted against the USA Free­dom Act last year be­cause he said it didn’t go far enough in rein­ing in the NSA, ar­gued that in the wake of the court’s rul­ing, Con­gress should be es­pe­cially cau­tious about any bill to ex­tend sur­veil­lance au­thor­it­ies.

“Now that the ap­pel­late court has ruled that Sec­tion 215 doesn’t au­thor­ize bulk col­lec­tion, would the USA Free­dom Act ac­tu­ally be ex­pand­ing the Pat­ri­ot Act?” the Ken­tucky Re­pub­lic­an and pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate asked in an op-ed in Time. “That would be a bit­ter irony if the at­tempt to end bulk col­lec­tion ac­tu­ally gave new au­thor­ity to the Pat­ri­ot Act to col­lect re­cords.

—Dustin Volz con­trib­uted to this art­icle

What We're Following See More »
JUST IN CASE…
White House Adds Five New SCOTUS Candidates
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump added five new names to his Supreme Court short list on Friday, should a need arise to appoint a new justice. The list now numbers 25 individuals. They are: 7th Circuit Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Georgia Supreme Court Justice Britt C. Grant, District of Columbia Circuit Appeals Court Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, 11th Circuit Appeals Judge Kevin C. Newsom, and Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick.

SAVE THOSE PERTAINING TO EXEC BRANCH
Sessions: DOJ Will No Longer Issue Guidance Documents
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Friday the Justice Department will revamp its policy for issuing guidance documents. Speaking at the Federalist Society’s annual conference in Washington Friday, Sessions said the Justice Department will no longer issue guidance that 'purports to impose new obligations on any party outside the executive branch.' He said DOJ will review and repeal any documents that could violate this policy." Sessions said: “Too often, rather than going through the long, slow, regulatory process provided in statute, agencies make new rules through guidance documents—by simply sending a letter. This cuts off the public from the regulatory process by skipping the required public hearings and comment periods—and it is simply not what these documents are for. Guidance documents should be used to explain existing law—not to change it.”

Source:
STARTS LEGAL FUND FOR WH STAFF
Trump to Begin Covering His Own Legal Bills
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS
DISCUSSED THE MATTER FOR A NEW BOOK
Steele Says Follow the Money
12 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

"Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who wrote the explosive dossier alleging ties between Donald Trump and Russia," says in a new book by The Guardian's Luke Harding that "Trump's land and hotel deals with Russians needed to be examined. ... Steele did not go into further detail, Harding said, but seemed to be referring to a 2008 home sale to the Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev. Richard Dearlove, who headed the UK foreign-intelligence unit MI6 between 1999 and 2004, said in April that Trump borrowed money from Russia for his business during the 2008 financial crisis."

Source:
BRITISH PUBLICIST CONNECTED TO TRUMP TOWER MEETING
Goldstone Ready to Meet with Mueller’s Team
12 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The British publicist who helped set up the fateful meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016 is ready to meet with Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's office, according to several people familiar with the matter. Rob Goldstone has been living in Bangkok, Thailand, but has been communicating with Mueller's office through his lawyer, said a source close to Goldstone."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login