Supreme Court Declines Review of NSA Phone Spying

Activists protest the surveillance of U.S. citizens by the NSA outside the Justice Department where President Barack Obama gave a major speech on reforming the NSA January 17, 2014.
National Journal
Dustin Volz
April 7, 2014, 6:17 a.m.

The Su­preme Court on Monday op­ted to not take up the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s sur­veil­lance pro­gram that col­lects bulk tele­phone data of mil­lions of Amer­ic­ans, a de­cision that ar­rives as the oth­er two branches of gov­ern­ment are mov­ing for­ward with re­forms to the con­tro­ver­sial prac­tice.

The deni­al leaves in place a lower-court rul­ing late last year that de­scribed the NSA’s col­lec­tion of phone “metadata” — such as call times and phone num­bers but not the con­tent of con­ver­sa­tions — as “al­most Or­wellian” and a likely breach of the Fourth Amend­ment. Oth­er fed­er­al judges have deemed the pro­gram leg­al.

Law­yer and con­ser­vat­ive act­iv­ist Larry Klay­man had chosen to take his case dir­ectly to the Su­preme Court after Dis­trict Judge Richard Le­on’s high-pro­file Decem­ber de­cision, an un­usu­al move that by­passed the Ap­peals Court, on grounds the case was of im­me­di­ate, press­ing con­cern to the pub­lic.

But the Su­preme Court re­jec­ted Klay­man’s re­quest Monday by fail­ing to grant the case cer­ti­or­ari, a pro­cess that re­quires four of the nine justices to agree a pe­ti­tion mer­its the court’s full re­view.

The Court’s de­cision to not im­me­di­ately go ahead with a re­view of the NSA’s con­tro­ver­sial sur­veil­lance pro­gram ex­posed by Ed­ward Snowden last year means that any changes to it will — for the time be­ing — go through Con­gress and Pres­id­ent Obama, who has already an­nounced a pro­pos­al that would re­quire tele­phone com­pan­ies, rather than the gov­ern­ment, to re­tain the vast data­base of phone re­cords. To ac­cess that data, the NSA would need to first ob­tain an or­der from the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court, al­though the agency could by­pass the court in emer­gency situ­ations.

Obama has said the pro­gram will con­tin­ue in its cur­rent state un­til Con­gress passes le­gis­la­tion that closely re­sembles his pro­pos­al. A bill in­tro­duced last month by House In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­man Mike Ro­gers and Rep. Dutch Rup­pers­ber­ger, the pan­el’s top Demo­crat, echoes Obama’s plan, but would al­low the NSA to force com­pan­ies to turn over par­tic­u­lar re­cords that would be go through court re­view after the fact.

But even as law­makers and the pres­id­ent have weighed sur­veil­lance re­forms, some have urged the ju­di­cial branch to help re­solve the is­sue.

“My hope is that the Su­preme Court will take this case,” Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­wo­man Di­anne Fein­stein, a vo­cal de­fend­er of the in­tel­li­gence com­munity, said fol­low­ing Le­on’s high-pro­file “Or­wellian” rul­ing last year.

The Su­preme Court can still choose to con­sider cases in­volving the NSA’s sur­veil­lance activ­it­ies, but Monday’s de­cision re­af­firms ex­pect­a­tions that the justices would rather al­low the is­sue to per­col­ate with­in the cir­cuit courts first.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
30 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×