klayman v. obama nsa metadata opinion
Post on 10-Feb-2018
240 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
1/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 68
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
-
KLAYMN et al.,
v.
OBAMA et al.,
KLAYMAN e al.,
v.
OBAMA et al,
Plainis,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendans.
)))))))))
))))))))
Civil Acion No. -085 (RJL)
FILED
DEC 1 6 2013
lek, U.S Distc & BnpyCour h Dc f mba
ORANDUM OPINIONDeebe /62013 D . 13 o 13-0851), 10 o 130881)]
On June 6 013 panffs boug e s ofo eae asus aengng eonsuonay an sauoy auozaon of ean negene-gaeng aes by
e ne Saes goveen eang o e oesae oeon of e one eo
eaaa of a S zens Tese eae ases ae o of sevea asus asng
laffs secod s was led less ha a wee laer o Je 1 2 203 ad challeged hecosoaly d saory ahorzao of he govees colleco of oh hoe adee meadaa records
2 he comla ALUv. lapper, Cv o 13-3994 whch was led he Ued SaesDsrc Cor for he Sohe Dsrc of ew York o Je 1 1 203 alleges clams smlar o
1
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
2/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 2 of 68
fo pub eveaons ove e pas sx ons a e feea goveen oug e
Naona Seuiy Ageny (NSA), an wi e paiipaion of ean
eeounaons an inee opanes, as onue suvei ane an ne gene-
gaeing pogas a oe ean aa abou e eepone an inee aivy of
Aean zens win e Uned Saes. Painffsve nivuas n oa beween
No. 13-81 ("Klayman f') an No. 1 3 88 1 ("Klayman )bng ese sus as US.
zens wo ae subsibes o uses ofean eeounaons an inee s.
See Seon A. op. (Klayman ! [D.# 3 7] 1 ; A. op. (Klayman ) [D.#
3] 1.3 Tey bng sui agains bo feea goveen efenans (sevea feea
agenes an nivua exeuive ofias) an pvae efenans (eeounaions
an inee s an ei exeuve ofes) aegng sauoy an onsuona
vioaons. See generally Seon Am. op. (Klayman ; A. op (Klayman )
efoe e ou ae panffs wo Moons fo Penay Injunion [D. # 1 3
(Klayman,# 1 (Klayman )] one n ea ase As e ef panffs see an injunion
a, ung e peneny of s su () bas [ ]efenans fo oeing [p ] anffs
hose in he insan wo cases See also In re Electronic Privacy Information Center, No 13 -58(S C) (Peiion for a Wri of Mandamus and Prohibiion, or a Wri of Ceriorari led uly 8,201 3 ; eiion denied Nov 1 8, 201 3); mit v Obama, Civ No 2: 1 30025 (D Idaho)(comlain led une 1 2, 20 1 3); First Unitarian Curc ofLos Angeles v. NSA, Civ No 13-328 (ND Cal) (comlain led uly 1 6, 201 3)
3 Plainiffs comlains reec heir inenion o bring boh suis as class acions on behalf ofhemselves and "all oher similarly siuaed consumers, users, and U S ciizens who arecusomers and users of, Second Am Com l ("Klayman ') 1 , or "who are subscribers, users,cusomers, and oherwise avail hemselves o, Am Coml ("Klayman I' 1 , heelecommunicaions and inee comanies named in he comlains Plainiffs have no ye,however, moved o cerify a class in eiher case and in fac have moved for exensions of ime ole a moion for class cericaion four imes in each case See Moion for Exension of Time oCerify Class Acion (Klayman ) D. ## , 14, 2, 40]; (Klayman I) D. ## 6 1 1 , 23, 33 ]
2
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
3/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 3 of 68
call records under the mass call survellance program; ( requres defendants to desroy
all of p]lantffs ' call records already col lected under the program and ( prohbts
d]efendans from queryng metadata obtaned through the program usng an phone
number or other denter assocated wth p] lantffs . . . and such other relef as may be
found just and proper. Ps . ' Mot. for Prelm. nj . (Klayman Dk.# 13 ] ; Ps .' Mot. for
Prelm Inj. (Klayman I Dkt.# 10] see also Ps' Mem. P. & A n Supp ofMot for
Prelm Inj . (Klayman ("Pls' Mem. Dkt.# 1 31 ] at 303 1 . In l ght of how
plantffs have craed ther requested relef the Court consrues the moons as
requestng a prel mnary njuncton 1 ) only as aganst the federal govemen
defendants and (2) only wh regard o the govemen's bulk collecon and querng of
phone record metadata Further between the two cases plantffs have alleged wth
sufcent patcularty that only two of the ve named plantffs Larry Klayman and
Carles Strange are telephone serce subscrbers . Accordngly for purposes of
4 Uness otherwse niate a tatons to Ps Mem an other oket tems herenaersha refer to the ngs mae in Klayman I
n Klayman I paniffs Lay Kayman an hares Strange have sumtte afavs statngthey are susrers of Verion Wreess for euar phone servie see Aff of Larry Kayman(ayman Aff) Dkt # 1 3-2 at 3 Supp Aff of Larry Kayman (ayman Supp Aff)Dkt # 3-2 at 3 ; Aff of hares Strange (Strange Aff) [Dkt # 3- 3 at 2 ut neither theompaint nor the motion afrmatvey aeges that Mary Ann Strange is a susrer of VerionWreess or any other phone serve see Seon Am om p 1 0 (esrng pantff Mary
Ann Strange) An n Klayman II where the ompaint an moton rase ams regarng thegoveents oeton an anayss of oth phone an nteet reors the pantffs netherspeiay aege nor sumt any afavts statng that any of them nvuay s a susrerof ether of the two name teephone ompany efenants AT&T an Sprntfor teleponeservices See Aff of Larry ayman (Klayman I Dkt # 1 02 at 3 (I am aso a user ofnteet serves y AT&T "); Supp Aff o f Larry Kayman (Klayman I [Dkt# 262at 3 (same); Aff of hares Strange (Klayman I Dkt # 0-3 at 3 (I am aso a user ofnteet servies y AT&T ); Am omp 14 (Paintff Garrison s a onsumeran user of Faeook Googe YouTue an Miroso prouts) omare Am om p
3
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
4/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 4 of 68
resolvng these two motons the Courts dscusson of relevant facts statutory
background and legal ssues wll be crcumscrbed to those defendans (herenaer "the
Govement those two plantffs herenaer "plantffs and those clams.
(Klayman I 1 3 (Plainti Ferrari is a susrier onsumer an user oSprint,Google/Gmail Yahoo an Appe. As a prominent private investigator Feari regularlyommuniates oth telephonially an eletronialy (emphasis ae)) wit Pls' Mem(Klayman I [Dkt. # 1 0 1 ] at 1 8 (Deenants have inisputaly also provie the SA withintrusive an warrantless aess to the internet records o Plaintis Mihae Ferrari an MatthewGarrison (emphasis ae))
6 Klayman Iones only the oletion an analysis o phone reor ata an only withrespet to private eenant Verion ommuniations Klayman II, y ontrast appears toone the olletion an anaysis o oth phone an inteet reor ata an inlues othphone ompanies an inteet ompanies as private eenants In the atter ase Plaintis'Motion or Preliminary Injuntion Dkt # 1 0] an their Memoranum o Points an Authoritiesin Support [Dkt # 1 0 1 ] suer rom some onusion as a resut o its larger sope On the aeo the Motion itsel Dkt. # 1 0] an their Propose Orer Dkt. # 1 04] plaintis request reiethat is iential to that requeste in the motion in Klayman !i. e relie oneing only theoletion an querying o phone reor ata Throughout the memoranum in suppor Dkt #1 0 1 ] however paintis interminge laims regaring the sureil ane o phone an inteetata an then in onusion request reie argualy oneing only inteet ata See Ps. 'Mem P & A Supp Mot Prelim Inj (Klayman I [Dkt # 101] at 4 32 (requesting aninjuntion that in par ars] Deenants rom olleting reors pertaining to Plaintis' onlineommuniations ad inteet ativities)
To the extent plaintis are in at requesting preliminary injuntive relie regaring anyallege inteet ata surveillane ativity the ourt nee not aress those laims or tworeasons First the Goveent has represente that any uk olletion o inteet metadatapursuan to Secion 25 50 S 86 was discontnued in 20 ee Gov Defs O 'n toPs ' Mot or Prelim Inj (Govt ' s Opp'n) Dkt # 25 ] at 1 5 1 6 4445 ; Ex. J to Del o JamesJ Gilli gan (Giligan Del.) Dkt. # 25 1 1 ] (Letter rom James R apper to the Sen RonWyen (July 25 20 1 3)) an thereore there is no possie ongoing harm that ou e remeiey injuntive reie Seon to the extent paintis hallenge the Govement' s targeteoletion o inteet ata content pursuant to Setion 702 (50 US. 1 88 1 a) uner the so
ale PRISM program whih targes nonS persons loate outsie the US plaintishave not alege suient ats to show that the SA has targete any o their ommuniationsSee Govt ' s Opp'n at 2 1 22 44 Aoringly plaintis ak staning as squarey itate y theSpreme ourt's reent eision in lapper v Amnes International USA, 13 3 S t 1 1 38(20 1 3) whih ones the same statutory provision I n lapper, the ourt hel thatresponents whose work purporey invove engaging in phone an internet ontat withpersons loate aroa lake staning to hallenge Setion 702 eause i was speulativewhether the goveent woul seek to target target an atualy aquire their ommuniations.See lapper, 1 33 S t at 1 1 4850 ([R]esponents' speulative hain o possiilities oes not
4
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
5/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 5 of 68
For the reasons dscussed beow the Court rst nds that t lacks jursdcton to
hear plantffs' Admnstratve Procedure Act ("APA clam that the Govement has
eceeded ts statutory authorty under the Foregn Intel lgence Survellance Act
("FISA . Net the Court nds that t does however have the authorty to evaluate
plantffs consttutonal challenges to the NSAs conduct notwthstandng the fact that t
was done pursuant to orders ssued by the Foregn Intel lgence Surve llance Court
("FI SC And aer careful consderaton of the partes pleadngs and supplemental
pleadngs the representatons made on the record at the November 1 8 20 1 3 hearng
regardng these two motons and the applcable law the Court concludes that plantffs
have standng to challenge the constutonalty of the Govements bulk col lecton and
queryng of phone record metadata that they have demonstrated a substantal lkelhood
of success on the merts of ther Fourh Amendment clam and that they wl l suffer
rreparable harm absent prelmnary njunctve relef.7 Accordngly the Cour wll
GRANT n part the Moton for Prelmnary Injuncton n aan I (wth respect to
sas a nuy as on ona uur suvan s any n o s aryraal o 1 88 1 a) So oo for planffs hr (In fa planffs hr hav no vn allgha hy ommuna wh anyon ous h Un Sas a all so r lams unr Son702 ar vn ss oora han hos of h painffs n apper
7 Baus I ulmaly n a planffs hav ma a sufn showng o r njunvrf on hr Four Amnn lam I o no ra hr or onsuonal lams unr hFrs an Fh Amnmns See Seven-Sk v Hoder 66 1 F 3 1 46 (D r 20 1 1 ) (nongh rok prnpl ofjual rsran a ours avo prmaurly or unnssarlyng onsuonal qusons) abrogated by Nat ' Fed n of Indep. Bus v. Sebeius 132 S 2566 (2012) see aso Wash State Grange v. Wash. State Repubican Par 552 US 442450 (2008) (nong h funamnal prnpl of jual rsran ha ours shoul nhranpa a quson of onsuonal law n avan of h nssy of ng norformula a rul of onsuonal law roar han s rqur y h prs fas o whh so appl (aons an nal quoaon arks o))
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
6/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 6 of 68
Larry Kayman and Chares Strange ony) and DENY the otion for Preiminary
nunction in Klayman I. However in view of the signicant nationa security interests
at stake in this case and the novety of the constitutiona i ssues wi STAY my order
pending appea
BACKGROUND
On June 20 13 the ritish newspaper The Guardian reported the rst of severa
"eaks of cassied materia from Edward Snowden a former NSA contract empoyee
which have reveaedand continue to reveamutipe U S govement inteigence
coection and surveiance programs See Genn Greenwad NSA collecing phone
records ofmillions of Verizon cusomers daily, GUARDIAN (London) June 2013 That
initia media report discosed a FS C order dated Apri 2 20 1 3 compeing Verizon
usiness Network Serices to produce to the NSA on "an ongoing daiy basis a ca
detai records or teephony metadaa' created by Verizon for communications (i)
between the United States and abroad; or (ii) whoy within the United States incuding
oca teephone ca s Secondary Order In re Applicaion of he [FBI] for an Order
Requirng e roducon o angile ngs rom erzon usness eork Servces
Inc. on Beha ofMCI Communicaon Services Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services, No
1 3 -80 at 2 (FSC Apr 2 20 1 3) (attached as Ex F to Giigan Dec ) [Dkt# 27]
("Apr 2 20 1 3 Secondary Order) According to the news artice this order "show[ed]
that under the Obama administraion the communication records o mi ions of US
ala a http://theguaranom/worl/20 3/jun/06/nsa-phonereors-veron-ourorer
6
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
7/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 7 of 68
citizens are being coected indiscriminatey and in bukregardess of whether they are
suspected of any wrongdoing Greenwad, supra n response to this discosure, the
Govement conrmed the authenticity of the Apri 2 , 20 1 3 FSC Order, and, in this
itigation and in certain pubic statements, acknowedged the existence of a "program
under which "the F obtains orders from the FSC pursuant to Section 2 1 [of the USA
PATOT Act] directing certain teecommunications service providers to produce to the
NSA on a daiy basis eectronic copies of ca detai records ' Go 's Oppn at 8
Foowon media reports reveaed other Government surveiance programs, incuding the
Govements coection of inteet data pursuant to a program caed "PS See
Genn Greenwad & Ewen acAski, NSA Prism program aps in o user daa of Appe
ooge and ohers GUAAN (London), June 6 2013
9 Athough aspets o the program reman asse, nung whh other teeommunatons
serve provers eses Veron Busness etwork Serves are nvove the Goveent haseasse an mae avaae to the pu ertan ats aout the program See Oe o theDr oat Integene, DNI Statement on Recent Unauthorized Disclosure of ClassedInformation (June 6, 203), available at http://ngov/nexphp/newsroom/pressreeases/9-press-reeases-203/868n -satementon-reent-unauthore-sosures-oasse-normaon e o he Dr oa neene, DN Declasses ntelligenceCommuni Documents Regarding Collection Under Section 702 of the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Act (FISA) (Aug 2 203), available athtp// ngov/nexphp/newsroom/pressreeases/9press-reeases-203/95-neassesnegene-ommunty-oumentsregarng-oeon-uner-seton702-otheoren-ntegenesurveane-atsa Oe o the Dr oat Inteene DNI Clapper
Declasses Intelligence Communi Documents Regarding Collection Under Section 501 oftheForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA (Sept 0, 203), available athttp://n gov /nexphp/newsroom/press-reeases/9-press-re eases-20 3/927 -raoument; Amnstraton Whte Paper: Buk Coeton o Teephony Metaata uner Seton25 o the SA PATRIOT At (Aug 9, 203) available athtp: //appswashngonposom/g/page/pos/oamaamnstraton-whte-paperon-nsasurveane-oversght/3 88/
10 Available at http://theguaran.om/wor/203/jun/06/us-teh-gants-nsa-ata
7
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
8/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 8 of 68
Soon aer the rst pubc reveatons n the news meda pantffs ed ther
compants n these two cases on June 6, 20 3 (Kayman and June 2 20 3 (Kayman
I, allegng that the Govement wth the partcpaton of prvate companes s
conductng "a secret and legal govement scheme to ntercept and analyze vast
quanttes of domestc telephonc communcatons Second Am Compl 2 (Kayman
, and of communcatons from the nteet and electronc servce provders Am
Comp 2 (Kayman I Plantffs n Kayman /attorney Larry Kayman founder of
Freedom Watch a publc nterest organzaton and Chares Strange the father of
Mchael Strange a cryptologst technc an for the NSA and support personnel for Navy
SEAL Team V who was kled n Afghanstan when hs hecopter was shot down n
20 assert that they are subscrbers of Verzon Wreess and brng sut aganst the
NSA the Department of Justce ("DOJ) and severa executve ofcas (Presdent
Barack H Obama Attoey Genera Erc H Hoder Jr General Keth B Alexander
Drector of the NSA and US Dstrct Judge Roger Vnson) as wel as Verzon
Communcatons and ts chef executve ofcer Second Am Comp 9 9 ; Kayman
Aff 3; Strange Aff 2 And plantffs n Kayman Mr Klayman and Mr Strange
agan along wth two prvate nvestgators Mchael Ferrar and Matthew Garrson
brng sut aganst the same Govement defendants as we as Facebook Yahoo
Google Mcroso YouTube AOL Pal Tak Skype Sprnt AT&T and Apple assertng
that plantffs are "subscrbers users customers and otherwse aval themselves to these
named nteet andor teephone servce provder companes Am Comp 4 ;
8
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
9/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 9 of 68
Kayman Aff 3 ; Kayman Supp Aff 3 ; Strange Aff 3 Speccay pantffs
aege that the Government has voated ther ndvdua rghts under the Frst Fourth
and Fh Amendments of the Consttuton and has voated the Admnstratve Procedure
Act ("AP A) by exceedng ts statutory authorty under FSA Second Am C omp
- 8 4999
I. Statutory Background
A. FISA and Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (50 U.S.C. 1861)
n 978 Congress enacted the Foregn ntegence Surveance Act 50 U S C
80 e seq ("FSA) "to authorze and reguate certan govementa eectronc
surve ance of communcatons for foregn nte gence puoses Capper v. Amnes
In ' USA, 3 3 S Ct 3 8 43 (20 3) Aganst the backdrop of ndngs by the Senate
Seect Commttee to Study Government Operatons wth Respect to nte gence
Actvtes (the Church Commttee) that the executve branch had for decades engaged
n warrantess domestc ntegencegatherng actvtes that had egay nfrnged the
Fourth Amendment rghts of Amercan ctzens Congress passed FSA n arge measure
as a response to the reveatons that warrantess eectronc sureance n the name o
natona securty has been serousy abused S Rep No 95-604 at 7 n the vew of the
Senate Judcary Commttee the ac went "a ong way n strkng a far and just baance
between protecton of natona securty and protecton of persona bertes ! at 7.
See supra, notes 5, 6. Paintiffs aso allege certain statutory ioations by the priate company defendants SecondAm Compl 8-95 , which are not a issue for purposes of the Preliminary Injunction Motionsas wel as common law priacy tort caims, Second Am Comp 70-80
9
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
10/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 10 of 68
FISA created a procedure for the Govement to obtan ex parte judcal orders
authorzng domestc electronc survellance upon a showng that iner aia, the target of
the surve llance was a foregn power or an agent of a foregn power 50 U. S. C
1 804(a(3 1 805(a(2 In enactng FISA Congress also created two new Artcle III
courtsthe Foregn Intellgence Survellance Court ("FISC composed of eleven US.
dstrct judges "whch shall have jursdcton to hear applcatons for and grant orders
approvng such survellance 1 803 (a( and the FISC Court of Revew composed of
thee U S dstrct or court of appeals judges "whch shall have jursdcton to revew the
denal of any applcaton made under [FISA 1 803 (b
In addton to authorzng wetaps 1 80 1 1 8 12 FISA was subsequently
amended to add provsons enablng the Government to obtan ex parte orders authorzng
physcal searches 1 82 1 1 829 as well as pen regsters and trapandtrace devces
184 1 1846 See Intell gence Authorzaton Act for Fscal Year 1 995 Pub L No 1 03
359 807(a(3 108 Stat 3423; Inellgence Authorzaton Act for Fscal Year 1999
13 The eleven US dstrct judges are apponted by the Chef Justce of the Unted States to serveon the FISC for a term of seven years each 50 US C 1 803(a)( ), (d) They are drawn from atleast seven of the twelve judcal crcuts n the Unted States, and at least thee of the judgesmust resde wthn twenty mles of the Dstrct of Columba 1 803(a)( ) For these elevendstrct judges who comprse the FISC at any one tme, ther servce on the FISC s in additionto not n leu of, ther normal judcal dutes n the dstrcts n whch they have been appontedSee Theodore W Ruger, ChiefJustice Rehquist 's Appointments to the FISA Court: An EmpiricalPerspective, 01 N U L Rv. 239, 244 (2007) (Servce on the FISA Court s a part
tme poston The judges rotate through the court perodcally and mantan regular dstrct courtcaseloads n ther home courts ") Accordngly, servce on the FISC s , at best, a part-tmeassgent that occupes a relatvely small part of each judge 's annual judcal dutes Further,as a result of the requrement that at least three judges resde wthn twenty mles of the naton'scaptal, a dsproportonate number ofthe FISC judges are drawn from the d strct courts of theDstrct of Columba and the Easte Dstrct of Vrgna, see id. at 258 (Appendx) (lstng ChefJustce Rehnqust s twenty-ve appontments to the FISC, sx of whch came from the D D C and ED Va)
1 0
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
11/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 11 of 68
Pub L No 05 -272 60 (2) 2 Stat 2396 (" 999 Act) In 998 Congress added a
"busness records provson to FISA See 999 Act 602 Under that provson the
FBI was permtted to apply for an ex parte order authorzng speced enttes such as
common carrers to release to the FBI copes of busness records upon a showng n the
FBI 's appl caton that "there are specc and artculable facts gvng reason to beleve
that the person to whom the records pertan s a foregn power or an agent of a foregn
power 50 USC 862(b)(2)(B) (2000)
Followng the September 200 terrorst attacks Congress passed the USA
PATRIOT Act, whch made changes to FISA and several other laws Pub L No 07
56 5 Stat 272 (200 ) Secton 2 5 of the PATRIOT Act replaced FISA' s busness
records provson wth a more expansve "tangble thngs provs on Coded at 50
USC 86 t authorzes the FB to apply "for an order requrng the producton of
any tangble thngs (ncludng books records papers documents and other tems) for an
nvestgaton to obtan foregn ntelgence nformaton not conceng a Unted States
person or to protect aganst nteatonal terrorsm or clandestne ntell gence actvtes '
86 (a)( ) Whe ths provson orgnay reqred that the FI s applcaton shal
spec that the records conceed are sought for such an nvestgaton 86 (b )(2)
(Supp I 200) Congress amended the statute n 2006 to provde that the FBI's
appl caton must nclude "a statement of facts showng that there are reasonable grounds
to beleve that the tangble thngs sought are relevant to an authorzed nvestgaton to
obtan foregn ntellgence nformaton not conceng a Unted States person or to
protect aganst nternatonal terrorsm or clandestne ntellgence actvtes
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
12/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 12 of 68
1861(b)(2)(A); see USA PATRIOT Improement and Reauthorzaton Act of2005 Pub
L No 109177 106(b) 120 Stat 192 ("USA PATRIOT Improement and
Reauthorzaton Act)
Secton 1861 aso mposes other requrements on the FBI when seekng to use ths
authorty For exampe the nestgaton pursuant to whch the request s made must be
authorzed and conducted under gudenes appro ed by the Attorney Genera under
Execute Order No 1 23 33 (or a successor thereto) 50 U S C 1 86 1 (a)(2)(A)
(b)(2)(A) And the FBI 's appcaton must "enumerate mnmzaton procedures
adopted by the Attoey Genera that are appcabe to the retenton and dssemnaton
by the FBI of any tangbe thngs to be made aaabe to the FBI based on the order
requested 1 86 1 (b)(2)(B) The statute denes "mnmzaton procedures as n
reeant par "specc procedures that are reasonaby desgned n ght of the puose
and technque of an order for the producton of tangbe thngs to mnmze the retenton
and prohbt the dssemnaton of nonpubcy aaabe nformaton conceng
unconsentng US persons consstent wth the need of the US to obtan produce and
dssemnate foregn ntegence nformaton 1 86 1 (g)(2) I f the FISC judge nds that
the FBI 's app caton meets these requrements he "sha enter an ex parte order as
requested or as moded approng the reease of tangbe thngs (herenaer
"producton order) 1 8 6 1 ( c )( 1 ); see aso 1 8 6 1( ( l )(A) ("the term producton order'
means an order to produce any tangbe thng under ths secton)
Under Secton 1861's "use proson nformaton that the FBI acqures through
such a producton order "conceng any U S person may be used and dscosed by
1 2
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
13/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 13 of 68
Fedeal ofces and epoyees without the consent of the US ] peson only in
accodance with the iniization pocedues adopted by the ttoey Geneal and
appoved by the FISC 1 86 1 (h Meanwhile , ecipients of Section 1 86 1 poducion
odes ae obligated not to disclose the existence of the odes, with lited exceptions
1861(d(l
B. Jdicial Review by the FISC
While the ecipient of a poduction ode ust keep it secet, Section 1 86 1 does
povide the ecipientut only the ecipienta ight ofjudicia eview ofthe ode
befoe the FISC pusuant to specic pocedues io to 2006, ecipients of Section
1 86 1 poducion odes had no expess ight to judicia eview of those odes, but
Congess added such a povision when it eauthoized he TRIOT ct that yea See
US TRIOT Ipoveent and Reauthoizaion ct 1 06( 1 D KRI & J. WILSON,
ATIOAL ECURITY VESTIGATIONS & PROSECUTOS 1 7 (2d ed 20 1 2 ("Kis &
Wilson ("io to the Reauthoization ct in 2006, FIS did not allow fo two-paty
litigation befoe the FISC
Unde Section 1861, a] peson eceiving a poduction ode ay chaenge the
legal ity of tha ode by ling a petition with the peition eview pool of FISC judges]
50 US C 186 1 ((2((i; see 1803(e ( 1 ) . The FISC eview pool judge
consideing the petition ay gant the petition "only if the judge nds that [the] ode
4 The three uges who rese whn twenty mes o he Dsr of Couma omprse thepeton revew pool (unless al hree are unavaale n whh ase other FSC juges may eesgnate) 1 803 (e)( ) n aon to revewng peons to revew Seon 1 8 prouonorers pursuant o 1 8 1 ( he revew pool also has urson to revew petons epursuan o 1 88 a(h)(4) !d.
1 3
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
14/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 14 of 68
does not eet the equieents of Section 1 86 1 ] o is othewise unawfu .
1 86 1 ((2(B Once the FISC eview poo judge ues on the petition, eithe the
Goveent o the ecipient of the poduction ode ay seek an en ban heaing befoe
the fu FISC, 1 803 (a(2(, o ay appea the decision by ing a petition fo eview
with the FISC Cout of Review, 1 86 1 ((3 Finay, ae the FISC Cou of Review
endes a witten decision, eithe the Govenent o the ecipient of the poduction ode
ay then appea this decision to the Supee Cou on petition fo wit of ceioai .
1 86 1 ((3, 1 803 (b. poduction ode "not expicity odied o set aside consistent
with Section 1 86 1 (] sha eain in fu effect 1 86 1 ((2(D.
Consistent with othe condentiaity povisions of FIS, Section 1 86 1 povides
that "a] petitions unde this subsection sha be ed unde sea, 1 86 1 (( 5 and the
"ecod of poceedings . . sha be aintained unde secuity easues estabished by
the Chief Justice of the United States, in consutation with the ttoey Genea and the
Diecto ofNationa Inteigence, 1 86 1 ((4 See 1803(c.
II. Colletion of Bulk Telephony Metadata Pursuant to Setion 1861
To say the east paintiffs and the Goveent have poayed the scope of the
Goveents sueiance activities vey diffeenty Fo puposes of esoving these
peiinay injunction otions howeve, as wi be ade cea in the discussion beow, it
5 n addon o an ha h NSA has "drc accss o Vrzon s daabass Scond AmCom p 7 and s cocn ocaon nformaon as par of "ca da rcords, Ps. Mm. a10 Mr Kayman and Mr. Sran aso sus ha hy ar "prm ars of h Govnd o hr pubc advocacy and cam ha h Govn s bhnd ad nxpcab xmssas bn sn from and rcvd on hr phons Ps Mm. a 1 3- 1 Kayman Af 1 1 Sran Aff. 1 2- 1 7
14
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
15/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 15 of 68
w sufce to accept the Goveents descrpton of the phone etadata coecton and
queryng progra C Cbe v rtn 3 F 3 d 25, 26 (D C Cr 2004 (evdentary
hearng on prenary njuncton s necessary ony f the court ust ake credbty
deternatons to resove key factua dsputes n favor of the mving par)
In broad overew, the Goveent has deveoped a "counterterrors progra
under Secton 1861 n whch t coect, copes, retans, and anayzes certan teephone
records, whch t characterzes as "busness records created by certan
teecouncatons copanes (the "Buk Teephony Metadata rogra The records
coected under ths progra consst of"etadata, such as nforaton about what
phone nubers were used to ake and receve cas, when the cas took pace, and how
ong the ca s asted Dec of ctng ssstant Drector Robert J Hoey, Federa Bureau
of Investgaton ("Hoey Dec [Dkt # 25-5 at 5 ; Dec of Teresa H Shea, Sgnas
Integence Drector, Natona Securty gency ("Shea Dec [Dkt# 25-4], at 7;
rary Order, In re Appicatin fthe [FBI} fr an Order Requiring the Prductin f
Tangibe Things Frm [Redacted} No BR 13 - 1 58 at 3 n (FISC Oct 1 1 , 20 1 3
(atached as x B o Ggan Dec [Dkt 25 3] (Oct , 203 rary Order
ccordng to the representatons ade by the Goveent, the etadata records
coected under the progra do nt ncude any nforaton about the content of those
6 Oct , 20 Prmary Ordr at 3 n. (For purposs of ths Ordr tphony mtadatancuds comprhnsv communcatons routn nformaton ncudn bt not mtd tossson dntfyn nformaton (. ornatn and trmnatn tphon numbrntatona Mob Subscrbr dntty ( MS) numbr ntatona Mob staton Equpmntdntty (ME) numbr tc) trnk dntr tphon can card numbrs and tm andduraton of ca)
5
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
16/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 16 of 68
cas, o the naes, addesses, o nancia infoation of any paty to the cas Ho ey
Dec , Shea Dec 1 Oct 1 1 20 1 3 Piay Ode at 3 n l 17 Though tageted
coputeized seaches of those etadata ecods, the NSA ties to disce connections
between teoist oganizations and peviousy unknown teoist opeatives ocated in the
United States Hoey Dec 5 Shea Dec 8- 1 0, 44
The Goveent has conducted the Buk Teephony Metadata Poga fo oe
than seven yeas Beginning in May 2006 and continuing though the pesent, the FBI
has obtained poduction odes fo the FISC unde Section 1 86 1 diecting cetain
teecounications copanies to poduce, on an ongoing daiy basis, these teephony
etadata ecods, Ho ey Dec 6; Shea Dec 1 3 , which the copanies ceate and
aintain as pat of thei business of poviding teecounications sevices to custoes,
Hoey Dec 1 0; Shea Dec 1 8 The NSA then conso idates the etadata ecods
povided by diffeent teecouniations copanies into one database, Shea Dec 23,
and unde the FISC's odes, the NSA ay etain the ecods fo up to ve yeas, i
7 Panffs have aeed ha the Goveen has aso coected ocaton nformao for cephones. Second Am omp 8; Ps ' em at - Whe more recen FS opnonsexpressy sae ha ce -se ocaon nformaon s no covered by Secton 1 86 1 productonorders s g Oc 1 1 1 3 Prmary Order a 3 n he Goveent has not afrmatveyrepresented o hs ourt that the NSA has not at any pont n the hstory of the Buk Teephonyeadaa Proram coected ocaon nformaton (n one echnca format or anoher) abou cephones S .g Govt.'s Oppn a 9 (denn eephony metadata and non wha s not
ncuded) Order In r Application ofth [FBI] for an Ordr Rquiring th Production ofTangibl Things from Rdactd] No BR 6-5 a 2 (FS ay 24 6) availabl athtp://w.dn .ov/ndex.php/newsroom/press-reeases/1 9 1 -pressreeases 1 3/927dradocumen (denn teephony meadaa and non wha s not ncuded, but not expressy statnha he order does not authorze he producon of cese ocaon nformaton).
8 The mos recent FS order auhorzn he Buk Teephony eadata Proram that heGoveent has dscosed (n redaced form drected o an uknown recpen) expres onJanuary 3 214 S Oct 1 1 21 3 Prmary Order at 17
1 6
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
17/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 17 of 68
30 see Oct , 203 iay Ode at 4 ccoding to Goveent ofcias, this
aggegation of ecods into a singe database ceates "an histoica epositoy that peits
etospective anaysis , Govt s Opp n at 2, enabing NS anaysts to daw connections,
acoss teecounications seice povides, between nubes easonaby suspected to
be associated with teoist activity and with othe, unknown nubes Hoey Dec 5 ,
8 Shea Dec 46, 60
The FISC odes govening the Buk Teephony Metadata oga specicay
provide that the etadata ecods ay be accessed ony fo counteteois puposes
(and technica database aintenance Hoey Dec 8 Shea Dec 30 Specicay,
NS inteigence anaysts, without seeking the approva ofa judicia ocer ay access
the ecods to obtain foeign inteigence infoation ony though ueies of the
ecods pefoed using "identies, such as teephone nubes, associated with
teoist activity n "identie i e , seection te o seach te used to stat a
quey of the database is ca ed a "seed, and "seeds ust be appoved by one of twenty
two designated ofcias in the NS's Hoeand Secuity naysis Cente o othe pats
of the NS's Signas Inte igence Diectoate Shea Dec , 3 Such appova ay
be given ony upon a deteination by one of those designated ofcias that thee exist
facts giving ise to a "easonabe, articuabe suspicion ("RS that the seection te
19 n her decaraton, Teresa H. Shea, Drector of the Snas nte ence Drectorate at the NSA,states that queres, or term searches, of the metadata dataase are conducted usn metadatadenters, eg teephone numbers, that are assocated wth a foren terrorst oranzatonShea Dec 9 (emphass added) f a teephone numer s ony a exampe of denter thatmay e used as a search term, t s not cear what other denters may e used to query thedataase, and the Govement has not eaorated See eg, Oct 203 Prmary Order at 5n.4, -0 (redactn text that appears to dscuss seecton terms) .
7
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
18/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 18 of 68
to be queed s assocated wth one o oe of the speced foegn teost
oganzatons appoved fo tagetng by the FISC Ho ey Dec 1 5- 1 6 In 2012, fo
exape, fewe than 300 unque dentes et ths RS standad and wee used as
"seeds to quey the etadata, but "the nube of unque dentes has vaed ove the
yeas Shea Dec 24
When an NS nte gence anayst uns a quey usng a "seed, the nzaton
pocedues povde that quey esuts ae ted to ecods of councatons wthn
thee "hops fo the seed ! 22 The quey esuts thus w ncude ony dentes
and the assocated etadata havng a dect contact wth the seed (the st "hop,
dentes and assocated etadata havng a dect contact wth st "hop dentes (the
second "hop, and dentes and assocated etadata havng a dect contact wth
second "hop dentes (the thd "hop ! 22 ; Govt s Opp n at 1 1 In pan
Engsh ths eans that f a seach stats wth teephone nube ( 1 23 45 6-780 as the
"seed, the st hop w ncude a the phone nubes that ( 123 45 6-780 has caed o
eceved cas fo n the ast ve yeas (say, 1 00 nubes, the second hop w ncude
a the phone nubes that each of those 1 00 nubes has caed o eceved cas fo n
the ast ve yeas (say, 00 nubes fo each one of the 1 00 "st hop nubes, o
0,000 tota, and the thd hop w ncude a the phone nubes that each of those
10,000 nubes has caed o eceved cas fo n the ast ve yeas (say, 100 nubes
fo each one of the 1 0000 "second hop nubes, o 1 ,000,000 tota See Shea Dec
A dtrmnaton that a sction trm mts th RAS standard rmans ffctv for 8 daysfor any scton trm rasonaby bvd to b usd by a .S . prson and for on yar for aothr scton trms S Oct 1 1 21 3 Primary Ordr at 1.
1 8
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
19/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 19 of 68
25 n Th actua numbr of tphon numbrs and thir associatd mtadata capturd
in any givn ury vari of cours, but in th abnc of any pcic rprsntations
from th Govmnt about typica ury rsuts it is iky that th uantity of phon
numbrs capturd in any givn ury woud b vry arg.Z
Ar san ha fwr han 3 unqu dnrs m h S sandard and wr usd as"sds o qury h madaa n 2 2, Ms. Sha nos ha "[b]caus h sam sd dnrcan b qurd mor han onc ovr m, can nra mup rsponsv rcords, and can busd o oban conac numbrs up o hr hops from h sd dnr, h numbr of
madaa rcords rsponsv o such qurs s substantially largr than 300, but is still a vrysmall rcntag ofth total volum ofmtadata rcords " Sha c 4 (mphass addd).Th rs par of hs assron s a arn undrsamn, wh h scond p s vruaymannss whn pacd n conx Frs, as h samp numbrs hav usd n h x abovdmonsra, s possb o arrv a a qury rsu n h mons whn hr hops wh usnvn consrvav numbrsndss o say, hs s "subsanay arr han 3 Ar a,vn f h avra prson n h nd Sas dos no ca or rcv ca s from unquphon numbrs n on yar, wha abou ovr a v-yar prod? And scond, babors hobvous o no ha vn fw mon phon numbrs s "a vry sma prcna of h oavoum of madaa rcors f h Govn has cocd madaa rcords on hundrds ofmons of phon numbrs
Bu s aso asy o man h spdrwb-k rach of h hrhop sarch rownxponnay and capurn vn hhr numbrs of phon numbrs. Suppos, for nsanc, hahr s a prson vn n Nw York Cy who has a phon numbr ha ms h RAS sandardand s approvd as a "sd And suppos hs prson, who may or may no acuay bassocad wh any rrors oranzaon, cas or rcvs cas from unqu numbrs, as nmy xamp Bu now suppos ha on of h numbrs h cas s hs nhborhood omnosPzza shop Th Cour won hazard a uss as o how many dffrn phon numbrs mh daa vn omno s Pzza ou n Nw York Cy n a v-yar prod, bu o ak a pa fromh Govns book of undrsamn, s "subsanay arr han h n h scondhop of my xamp, and woud hrfor mos ky rsu n xponna rowh n h scop ofh qury and ad o m ons of rcords bn capurd by h hrd hop. ( rconz ha som
mnmzaon procdurs dscrbd n rcn FSC ordrs prmn chnca prson oaccss h madaa daabas o "dfa [] hh voum and ohr unwand [ madaa, Oc ,2 3 Prmary Ordr a 6, may, n pracc, rduc h khood of my omno s hypohcaxamp occurrn. Bu, of cours, ha dos no chan h basn fac ha, by h rms ofh FSCs ordrs, h NSA s prmd o run qurs capurn up o hr hops ha canconcvaby capur mons of Amrcans phon rcords. Furhr, hs qurs usn nonRAS-approvd scon rms, whch ar prmd o mak h daabas "usab for nncanayss, id a 5 may vry w hmsvs nvov sarchn across mons of rcords)
1
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
20/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 20 of 68
Onc a ur is conductd and it rtus a univrs o rsponsiv rcords (i a
univrs l imitd to rcords o communications within thr hops rom th sd) traind
NSA analsts ma thn prorm nw sarchs and othrwis prorm intl ignc
analsis within that univrs o data without using Sapprovd sarch trms See Sha
Dc 26 (NSA analsts ma "chain contacts within th ur rsuts thmsvs); Oct
1 1 20 1 3 Primar Ordr22 According to th Govmnt olowing th "chains o
communicationwhich or chains that cross dirnt communications ntworks is
onl possibl i th mtadata is aggrgatdallows th analst to discovr inormation
that ma not b radil ascrainabl through othr targtd intlligncgathring
tchnius Sha Dcl 46 For xampl th ur might rva that a sd tlphon
numbr has bn in contact with a prviousl unknown US tlphon numbri on
th rst hop See i 58 And rom thr "contactchaining out to th scond and
third hops to xamin th contacts mad b that tlphon numbr ma rval a contact
with othr tlphon numbrs alrad known to th Govmnt to b associatd with a
oign trrorist organization ! 4 7, 62 In short th Buk Tlphon Mtadata
Program is mant to dtct () domstic U S phon numbrs cal ling utside oh U S
to orign phon numbrs associatd with trrorist groups (2) orign phon numbrs
Under the terms of the most recent FISC producton order avalable "q]ueres of the BRmetadata usn S-approved selecton terms may occur ether by manual analyst query orthrouh the automated query process descrbed below Ths automated query process queres thecollected BR metadata (n a collecton store) wth S-approved selecton terms and retusthe hoplmted results from those queres to a corporate store The corporate store may then besearched by approprately and adequately traned personnel for vald foren ntellencepurposes wthout the requrement that those searches use only Sapproved selecton terms.Oct 1 1 20 1 3 Prmary Order at 1 1 (footnote omitted) Ths "automated query process was rstapproved by the FISC n a November 8 20 1 2 order !d at 1 1 n. .
20
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
21/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 21 of 68
associatd with trrorist groups cang into th US to U S phon numbrs; and (3 )
"possib trroristratd communications btwn US phon numbrs inside th US
See i 44
Sinc th program bgan in May 2006, th FISC has rpatdy approvd
appications undr Sction 86 and issud ordrs dircting tcommunications srvic
providrs to produc rcords in connction with th Buk Tphony Mtadata Program
Sha Dc 3-4 Through Octobr 203, n diffrnt FISC judgs hav issud
thirtyv ordrs authorizing th program Govt ' s Opp' n at 9; see also Sha Dc
3-4; oy Dc 6 Undr thos ordrs, th Govmnt must priodica y sk
rnwa of th authority to co ct tphony rcords (typicay vry ninty days) Sha
Dc 4 Th Govrnmnt has nonthss acknowdgd, as it must, that faiurs to
compy with th minimization procdurs st forth in th ordrs hav occud For
instanc, in January 2009, th Govmnt rportd to th FISC that th NSA had
impropry usd an "art ist of idntirs to sarch th buk tphony mtadata, which
was composd of idntirs that had not bn approvd undr th RAS standard /
37; Ordr, In re Production ofTangible Things om [Redacted] No BR 08-3, 2009
95093 , at *2 (FISC Mar 2 , 2009) ("Mar 2, 2009 Ordr) Ar rviwing th
Govmnt's rports on its noncompianc, Judg Rggi Waton of th FISC concud
that th NSA had ngagd in "systmatic noncompianc with FISCordrd
mnimization procdurs ovr th prcding thr yars, sinc th incption of th Buk
Tphony Mtadata Pogam, and had aso rpatdy mad misrprsntations and
inaccurat statmnts about th program to th FISC judgs Mar 2, 2009 Ordr, 2009
2
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
22/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 22 of 68
95093 at *25 As a consunc, Judg Waton concudd that h had no
condnc that th Govmnt was doing its utmost to compy with th cou' s ordrs,
and ordrd th NSA to sk FISC approva on a case-by-case basis bfor conducting
any rthr uris of th buk tphony mtadata co ctd pursuant to Sction 86
ordrs. !d at *9; Sha Dc 38 39 This approva procdur rmaind in pac from
March 2009 to Sptmbr 2009 . Sha Dc 38 39.
Notwithstanding this simonth "sanction imposd by Judg Waton, th
Govmnt apparnty has had furhr compianc probms rating to its co ction
programs in subsunt yars In Octobr 20, th Prsiding Judg ofth FISC, Judg
John Bats, found that th Govmnt had misrprsntd th scop of its targting of
crtain intrnt communications pursuant to 5 0 US C 8 8a (i , a diffrnt coction
program than th Buk Tphony Mtadata Program at issu hr) Rfrncing th
2009 compianc issu rgarding th NSA 's us of unauthorizd idnirs to ury th
mtadata in th Buk Tphony Mtadata Program, Judg Bats wrot "th Cout is
Judg Waton notd that, sinc th arist days of th FSCauthorizd coction of cadtai rcords b th NSA, th NSA has o a dail basis, accssd th BR mtadata for purpossof comparing thousads of non-RAS-approvd tphon idntirs on its alrt l ist against thBR mtadata in ordr to idntif an matchs Such accss was prohibitd by th govingminimization procdurs undr ach of th rlvant Cour ordrs Mar 2, 2009 Ordr, 2009WL 91 509 1 3 , at *2 H wnt o to coclud "In summar, sinc anuar 1 5 , 2009, it has nallcom to light that th FIS Cs authorizatios of this vast col lction program hav bn prmisd
on a awd dpiction of how th NSA uss BR mtadata. This misprcption by th FSCxistd from th incption of its authorizd coction in May 2006, buttrssd by rpatdinaccurat statmnts mad in th govmnts submissions, and dspit a govntdvisdand Courtmandatd ovrsight rgim Th minimization procdurs proposd by thgovnt in ach succssiv appicaion and approvd and adoptd as biding by th ordrs ofth FSC hav bn so frqut ad sstmica vioatd that t ca far b said that thiscritica mt of th ovral BR rgim has nvr functiond ffctivy !d. at *5 .
22
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
23/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 23 of 68
troubld that th govrnmnts rvlations rgarding NSA's acuisit ion of Intt
transactions mark th third instanc in lss than thr yars in which th govrnmnt has
disclosd a substantial misrprsntation rgarding th scop of a major collction
program Mm Op [Redacted} No [rdactd at 1 6 n 14 FISC Oct 3 201 1) Both
Judg Walton's and Judg Bats's opinions wr only rcntly dclassid by th
Govmnt in rspons to th Congrssional and public raction to th Snowdn laksZ
ANALYSIS
I will addrss plaintiffs' statutory claim undr th APA bfor I tu to thir
constitutional claim undr th Fourth Amndmnt
I. Statutory Claim Under the AP A
Invoking this Court' s fdral ustion jurisdiction undr 28 US C 1 3 3 1
plaintiffs allg that th Govmnt' s phon mtadata collction and urying program
xcds th statutory authority grantd by FISA 's "tangibl things provision 50 U S C
1861 and thrby violats th Administrativ Procdur Act APA) 5 USC 706
Available at hp//wdni.go/indephp/newsoom/pess-eass/9-pss-eases203/95 -dni -decassies-ineigencecommuni -documens-egading-coecionundersecion-702-of-hefoeign-ineigencesueiance-ac-sa Whaeer he second "subsaniamisepesenaion was he Goeen appeas o hae redacd i from he foonoe in haopinion
See Ofce of he Di ofNa Ineigence DNI Declasses Inteligence Communi
Documents Regarding Coection Under Section 702 ofthe Foreign Inteligence Surveiance Act(FISA) (Aug 2 20 3) avaiabe at hp://wdnigo/indexphp/newsroompressreeases/9-press-reeases-203/95-dnidecassies-ineigence-communi-documensregarding-coecion-undesecion-702-of-heforeign-ineigence-surveianceac-sa; Ofceof he Dir ofNa' Ineigence DNI Capper Decasses Inteligence Communi DocumentsRegarding Collection Under Section 501 ofthe Foreign Inteligence Surveilance Act FISA)(Sep 0 203) avaiable at hp://wdnigo/indexphp/newsoompress-reeases/9-presseeases-203/927 -dra-documen
23
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
24/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 24 of 68
See Scond Am Compl 9699; Ps .' Mm. at 2 1 7- 1 9 ; Ps ' Rpl in Supp of Mots.
for Prlim. Inj ("Ps. ' Rpl) [Dkt# 3 1 at 5 1 1 . In paricular plantiffs argu that th
bulk rcords obtaind undr th Bulk Tlphon Mtadata Program ar not "rlvant to
authorizd national scurit invstigations see 50 U S C 1 86 1 (b)(2)(A) and that th
FISC ma not prospctivl ordr tlcommunications srvic providrs to produc
rcords that do not t xist See Ps' Mm at 1 7-1 9; Ps ' Rpl at 5 1 1 In rspons
th Govmnt argus that this Cour lacks subjct mattr jurisdiction ovr this statutor
claim bcaus Congrss implidl prcludd APA rviw of such claims Govmnt
Dfs.' Supplmntal Br. in Opposition to Ps' Mots. Prlim. Inj ("Govt 's Suppl Br)
[Dkt # 43 at 2 For th fol lowing rasons I agr with th Govrnmnt that I am
pcludd from rviwing plaintiffs' AP A claim
Th APA "stablishs a caus of action for thos suffring lgal wrong bcaus
of agnc action or advrsl affctd or aggrivd b agnc action' Koreto.
Vilsack 6 14 F3d 532 536 (DC. Cir 20 1 0) (uoting 5 U SC. 702). In paricular th
AP A prmits such aggrivd prsons to bring suit against th Unitd Stats and its
ofcrs for "rlif othr than mon damags 5 USC 702 such as th injunctiv
rlif plaintiffs sk hr. This gnral waivr of sovrign immunit dos not appl
howvr "if an othr statut that grants consnt to suit xprssl or implidl forbids
t rlif which i s sought ! Similarl th APA's "basic prsumption ofjudicial
rviw [of agnc action Abbott Labs v Gardner 387 US. 1 36 140 ( 1967) dos not
appl "to th xtnt that . . statuts prclud judicial rviw 5 US .C . 70 1 (a)( l )
Accordingl "[th prsumption favoring judicial rviw of administrativ action is just
24
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
25/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 25 of 68
thata prsumption, Block v. Communi Nutrition /ns. 467 US 340, 349 ( 1 984), and
it may b ovrcom "whnvr th congrssional intnt to prclud judicial rviw is
fairly discrnibl in th statutory schm / at 3 5 1 Assssing "[ whthr a statut
pcluds judicial rviw of agnc action is a ustion of congrssional intnt, which
is dtrmind from th statuts xprss languag, as wll as from th structur of th
statutory schm, its objctivs, its lgis lativ history, and th natur of th
administrativ action involvd Koreto 6 1 4 F 3d at 53 6 (uoting Block 467 US at
345); see also Thunder Basin Coal Co v. Reich 5 1 0 US 200, 207 ( 994)
Th Govmnt insists that two statuts50 U S C 1 86 1 , h "tangibl things
povision of FISA itslf, and 1 8 US C 27 1 2, a provision of th USA PATRIOT Act,
codid in th Stord Communications impliedly prclud this Courts rviw of
plaintiffs statutory APA claim Govt s Oppn at 263 1 ; Govt s Suppl Br at 1 4 Th
txt of Sction 1 86 1 , and th structur and purpos of th FISA statutory schm, as a
whol, do indd rct Congrsss prclusiv intnt Statd simply, Congrss cratd a
closd systm of judicial rviw ofth govmnts domstic forign intllignc
gathring, gnrally 50 U S C 1 803, and of Sction 1 86 1 production ordrs,
spcically, 1 86 1 (. This closd systm includs no rol for third paris, such as
paintiffs hr, nor courts bsids th FISC, such as this District Court Congrss s
prclusiv intnt is thrfor sufcintly clar ow so?
First, and most dirctly , th xt of th applicabl provision of FISA itslf, Sction
1 86 1 , vincs Congrss s intnt to prclud APA claims lik thos brought by plaintiffs
bfor this Court Sction 1 86 1 xprssly provids a right ofjudicial rviw of ordrs to
25
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
26/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 26 of 68
produc rcords but it ony xtnds that right to th recipients of such ordrs such as
tcommunications sric providrs See 50 USC 1 86 1 ( Congrss thus did not
prcud alljudicia rviw of Sction 1 86 1 production ordrs but I of cours must
dtrmin "whthr Congrss nvrthss forcosd rviw to th cass to which th
[paintiffs] bon[g] Block 467 U S at 34546 And "whn a statut provids a
dtaid mchanism for judicia considration ofparticular issues at th bhst of
particular persons judicia rviw of those issues at th bhst of other persons may b
found to b impidy prcudd ! at 349 (mphass addd); see also i at 34 548
(hoding that th statutory schm of th Agricutura Markting Agrmnt Act
("AMAA) which xprssy providd a mchanism for mik handlers to obtain judicia
rviw of mik markt ordrs issud by th Scrtary of Agricutur impidy prcudd
rviw of thos ordrs in suits brought by mik consumers) That is xacty th cas hr
Congrss has stabishd a dtaid schm ofjudicia rviw of th paricuar issu of
th "gaity of Sction 1 86 1 production ordrs at th bhst of ony rcipints of thos
ordrs 50 U S C 1 86 ((2)(A)(i) ("A prson rciving a production ordr may
chang th legali of that ordr by ing a ptition with th ptiton rviw poo of
FISC judgs (mphasis addd)) 1 86 ((2)(B) ("A judg considring a ptition to
modi or st asid a production ordr may grant such ptition ony if th judg nds that
such ordr does not meet the requirements ofthis section or is otherwise unlawful"
(mphasis addd)) And that schm ofjudicia rviw pacs such changs bfor th
FISC Sction 1 86 1 prmits such changs to b hard ony by th ptition rviw poo
26
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
27/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 27 of 68
o th FISC See 186((2)(A)(i); 1 803 ()( l ) (th FISC ptition rviw pool "shall
hav urisdiction to rviw ptitions ld pursuant to sction 1 86 1(( I ) . o this titl)
Scond th purpos and lgislativ history o Sction 1 86 1 also suppor th
conclusion that Congrss intndd to prclud AP A claims by third paris Simply put
Congrss did not nvision that third partis such as plaintis would vn ow about th
xistnc o Sction 1 861 ordrs much lss challng thir lgality undr th statut
See, e R Rp No 1 09 1 74 at 1 28 268 (2005) . As th Govmnt points out
"Sction 1 86 1 lik othr provisions o FISA stablishs a scrt and xpditious
procss that involvs only th Govmnt and th rcipint o th ordr in ordr to
"promot its ctiv nctioning as a tool or countrtrrorism Govt' s Opp'n at 29 ;
see also 50 USC. 1 86 1 (d)( l ) (rcipint o production ordr may not "disclos to any
othr prson that th FBI has sought or obtaind an ordr undr Sction 1 86 1 );
1 86 1 (( 5) ( "All ptitions undr this subsction shall b ld undr sal ); 1 8 6 1((4)
("Th rcord o procdings including ptitions ld ordrs grantd and statmnts o
rasons or dcision shall b maintaind undr scurity masurs stablishd by th
Chi Justic o th Unitd Stats in consultation with th Attorny Gnral and th
Dirctor o National Intll ignc ) Congrss did think about third partis such as
prsons whos rcords would b targtd whn it cratd a right to judicial rviw o
Sction 1 86 1 production ordrs or rcipints but it rcognizd that xtnding a simi lar
right to third partis would mak li ttl sns in l ight o th scrcy o such ordrs See
27
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
28/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 28 of 68
.R. Rp. No 1 09- 1 74 at 1 28 268 ; Govt. 's Opp' n at 29 n 14 ; Gov.' s Suppl Br at 3
Congrss thror considrd th prcis issu o challngs to th lgality o Sction
1 86 1 ordrs and th statut rcts its ultimat conclusions as to who may sk rviw
and in what court. 1 86 (; see also .R. Rp No 109174 at 12829 134 137
(rjcting amndmnt that would hav allowd rcipints o Sction 1 86 1 ordrs to bring
challngs to such ordrs in dral district cout).
But vn stting asid th spcic act that FISA dos not contain a judicial
rviw provision or third paris rgarding Sction 1 86 1 ordrs, Congrss' s prclusiv
intnt is all th mor vidnt whn on considrs, viwing FISA as a whol, that
Congrss did not contmplat th paricipation o third partis in th statutory schm at
al See Ark Dairy Coop Ass 'n v. Dep t ofAgric 573 F. 3d 8 1 5 822 (DC Cir 2009)
(noting that in raching it s dcision in Block "th Suprm Court did not concntrat
simply on th prsnc or absnc o an xplicit right o appal [or consumrs in th
AMAA, but instad notd that in th complx schm' o th AMAA, thr was no
provision or consumr paticipation o any kind.). Indd, until 2006 FISA did not
Conress has aso not provded a suppresson remedy for tanbe thns obtaned underSecton 86, n contrast to the "use of nformaton provsons under neary every othersubchapter of FSA, whch contan such a remedy Compre 5 USC 86 wit 86(e)(evdence obtaned or derved from an eectronc surveance), 825 ( (evdence obtaned orderved from a physca search), 845(e) (evdence obtaned or derved from the use of a penrester or trap and trace devce), 88e (deemn nformaton acqured under the secton to beacqured "from an eectronc surve ance for purposes of Secton 86)
n Arknss Diry, our Crcut Cout addressed a sut concen the AMAA, the same statuteat ssue n Bock The oveent, reyn on Bock hodn that mk consumers were barredom brnn a cam because the statute dd not rant them an express rht to udca revew,arued that mkproducers kewse coud not brn an acton because the AMAA dd notpovde them an express rht to judca revew ether See Ark Diry 573 F3 d at 822 Wheour Crcut Court reected ths arument, statn that "ths approach reads Bock too broady, t
28
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
29/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 29 of 68
xprssy contmplat participation by vn th recipients of Sction 86 production
ordrs, t alon third partis Rathr, as originally nactd, FISA was charactrizd by a
scrt, x part procss in which only th govmnt participatd Priod See 50
US C 805(a), ()(4); In re Sealed Case 30 F3 d 77, 79 (FISA Ct Rv 2002)
("[Th govmnt is th only party to FISA procdings ") . In passing th USA
PARIO Improvmnt and Rauthorization Act, howvr, Congrss providd an
avnu for rcipints of Sction 86 production ordrs to participat in lit igation bfor
th FISC and thus play a rol in th statutory schm See USA PATRIOT Improvmnt
and Rauthorization Act 06(; Kris & Wilson, 9 7 As such, it would not b
prudnt to trat Congrssional si lnc rgarding third partis as an intnt to provid
reasone a "e Supreme Court [ in Bock] i no concenrae simpy on e presence orabsence o an expici rig o appea in e AMAA, bu insea noe a in e compexsceme' o e AMAA, ere was no provision or consumer paricipaion o any kin !d Ia parcuar case, our Circui Cour oun a e AMAA i, in ac, conempae eparticipation o mik proucers in te reguatory process, an te cout reie on tis actor inpart, in oing a proucers cou bring sui uner e APA !d a 82227 Here, by conras,e ISA sauory sceme oes no conempae any paricipaion by ir paries in e processo reguaing goveena surveiance or oreign ine igence purposes, nor oes Secion 86conempae e paricipaion o ir paies in auicaing e egaiy o proucion orersInee, ony in e as ecae as e ISA sauory sceme permie paricipaion by evenrecipiens o proucion orers
Te USA PATRIOT Improvemen an Reauorizaion Ac aso ae a provision aowingrecipiens o Naiona Securiy eers ("NSs) o seek ucia review o ose eers SUSA PATRIOT Improvemen an Reauorizaion Ac 1 5. In conras o e provision o arig o uicia review o recipiens o Secion 1 86 proucion orers bfor t FISC, e acprovie a e recipien o an NS L (uner any o e ve NS L saues "may, in e UnieSaes isric cour or e isric in wic a person or eniy oes business or resies,peiion or an orer moiying or seing asie e reques 8 U S C 3 5.
29
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
30/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 30 of 68
broadr judc al rvw than that spccal ly st forth n th statut? Judcal alchmy of
that sort s partcularly napproprat on mattrs affctng natonal scurty
To b sur FISA and Scton 86 do mplcat th ntrsts of cll phon
subscrbrs whn thr srvc provdrs ar producng mtadata about thr phon
communcatons to th Govmnt as I wl l dscuss blow n th contxt of plant ffs'
consttutonal clams But th statutory prcluson nury "dos not only tu on whthr
th ntrsts of a partcular class . . ar mplcatd. Bock 467 U.S. at 347 "Rathr
th prcluson ssu turns ultmatly on whthr Congrss ntndd for that class to b
rld upon to challng agncy dsrgard of th law. /d Hr th dtald procdurs
st out n th statut for judcal rvw of Scton 86 producton ordrs at th bhst
of rcpnts of thos ordrs ndcat that for bttr or wors Congrss dd not ntnd for
Inee, it woul be cuious to eac te opposite conclusiontat even toug te statuteexpessl pemits onl ecipients to callenge Section 8 6 pouction oes in a specic oum(ae Congess ejecte an amenment tat popose to allow tem to bing tei callenges ineeal istict cout at te same time it ecie to allow ecipients oNSs to o exactl tat), eve toug Congess consiee but ecline to exten tat igt ojuicial eview to tipaies, Govt ' s Suppl. B at 3 tese plaintis can noneteless, in eect, callenge toseoes in istict cou b binging a claim une te APA callenging goveent agencconuct In Bloc wen ning tat te AMAA statute peclue claims b milk consumes,te Supeme Cout note tat pemitting consumes to seek juicial eview o milk oesiectl wen te statute equie milk anles to st exaust aministative emeies, "woulseveel isupt tis complex an elicate aministative sceme Bloc 467 US at 34 8; c
actt v. EPA, 132 S Ct 367 374 (201 2) ("Wee a statute povies tat paticula agencaction is eviewable at te instance o one pat, wo must st exaust aministative emeies,te ineence tat it is not eviewable at te instance o ote paties, wo ae not ubjct to teaministative pocess is stong) Pemitting ti paies to come into eeal istict cou tocallenge te legalit o Section 8 6 pouction oes, o govement agenc action conuctepusuant teeto une te banne o an AP A claim woul lkewise ustate te statutosceme ee wee Congess in ISA as set out a specic pocess o juicial eview o toseoes b te ISC
30
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
31/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 31 of 68
third partis such as plaintiff phon subscribrs hr to challng th Govmnts
1 . h h 30comp anc t t statut
II. Constitutional Claims
A. Jurisdictio
Finding that I lack jurisdiction to rviw plaintiffs APA claim dos not howvr
nd th Court s jurisdictional inuiry Plaintiffs hav raisd svral constitutional
challngs to th Govmnts conduct at issu hr And whil th Govmnt has
inay, agains is backrop o ISA s srucure, purpose, an isory, I n eGoveen s secon precusion argumena 1 8 U S C 27 1 2 aso sows Congress s ineno precue an APA sauory caim uner Secion 1 8 1 , Gov s Opp n a 30more persuasivean i oerwise appears wen reaing a saue aone Secion 27 1 2, wic Congress aeo e Sore Communicaions Ac in 200 1 , provies a "[a]ny person wo is aggrieve by anywiu vioaion o e Sore Communicaions Ac] or o e Wireap Ac] or o secions1 0(a 0 US.C 1 80(a], 30(a 0 US C 1 82(a] , or 40(a [0 US.C 1 84(a oe oreign Ineigence Surveiance Ac may commence an acion in Unie Saes DisricCour agains e Unie Saes o recover money amages Te Govemen argues abecause is saue creaes a mony damag acion agains e Unie Saes or vioaions oree specic provisions o ISA, i ipiey precues an acion or njunctv lfregaringany provision oISA, suc as Secion 1 8 1 See Gov s Oppn a 30-3 1 ; Gov s Supp Br a34 Accoring o e Goveen, "Secion 27 1 2 us eas wi caims or misuses oinormaion obaine uner ISA in grea eai, incuing e inene remey, an ereorepainis ere cano rey on Secion 1 8 1 "o bring a caim or vioaion o ISA s erms aCongress i no provie or uner 1 8 USC 27 1 2 Gov. s Oppn a 31 Inee, JugeWie in e Nore Disric o Caioia came o is same concusion, oing a Secion27 1 2, "by aowing suis agains e Unie Saes ony or amages base on ree provisions oISA] , impiey bans suis agains e Unie Saes a seek injuncive reie uner anyprovision oISA Jwl v Nat ' c. Agncy -- . Supp 2 -, 201 3 WL 382940, a *1 2(ND Ca Juy 23 , 201 3 O course, Secion 271 2 aso expressy provies a "[a]ny acionagains e Unie Saes uner is subsecion sa be e excusive remey agains e UnieSaes or any caims wthn th puvw ofth cton," 18 USC 2712( (empasis ae,
an ereore i mig be argue a Secion 27 1 2 s provision o a remey sou no be reamore broay o ave any precusive impac on vioaions o oer provisions o ISA, suc asSecion 1 8 1 , no "wiin e purview o a secion. Bu wen rea in conuncion wi ISAovera , an in ig o e secre naure o ISA proceeings esigne o avance ineigencegaering or naiona securiy purposes, I agree wi e Goveen a Secion 27 1 2 sprovision o a cerain remey, money amages, or vioaions o ony cerain provisions o ISAsou be rea o rer sow Congress s inen o precue juicia review o APA caims orinjuncive reie by ir paries regaring any provision o ISA, incuing Secion 1 8 1
3 1
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
32/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 32 of 68
concdd this Court' s authority to rviw ths constitutional claims Govt 's Suppl Br
at 4 I must nonthlss indpndntly valuat my jurisdictional authority see
Henderson ex re Henderson v. Shinseki 3 S Ct 97 202 (20) ("[Fdral courts
hav an indpndnt obligation to nsur that thy do not xcd th scop of thir
jurisdiction and thrfor thy must rais and dcid jurisdictional ustions that th
partis ithr ovrlook or lct not to prss)
Bcaus Articl III courts wr cratd in part to dal with allgations of
constitutional violations US C art III 2 th jurisdictional inuiry hr tus in
th nal analysis on whthr Congrss intndd to prclud judicial rviw of
constitutional claims rlatd to FISC ordrs by any nonFISC courts Not surprisingly
th Suprm Court has addrssd Congrssional ffors to limit constitutional rviw by
Aicl III cours In Webster v Doe 486 US 592 (988) th Court statd mphatically
that "whr Congrss intnds to prclud judicial rviw of constitutional claims its
intnt to do so must b clar at 603 Such a "hightnd showing is ruird "in
part to avoid th srious constitutional ustion' that would aris if a fdral statut wr
construd to dny any judicial forum for a colorabl constitutional claim d (holding
that although a formr CIA mploy who a llgd that h was rd bcaus h was a
homosxual in violation of th AP A and th Constitution could not obtain judicial
rviw undr th APA caus such dcisions wr committd to th agncy' s discrtion
by law 5 U S C 70 l (a)(2) undr a provision of th National Scurity Act of 947 a
court could nonthlss rviw th plaintifs constitutional claims basd on th sam
allgation)
32
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
33/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 33 of 68
As discussd in Part I abov, FISA dos not includ an xprss right of judicial
rviw for third pary lgal challngs to Sction 86 ordrswhthr constitutional or
othrwis, whthr in th FISC or lswhr But nithr dos FISA contain any
languag expressy barring all judicial rviw of third party claims rgarding Sction
86 ordrsa ncssary condition to vn rais th ustion of whthr FISA' s
statutory schm ofjudicial rviw provids th xclusiv mans of viw for
constitutional claims rlating to Sction 86 production ordrs See Egin v Dep 't of the
Treasury 32 S . Ct. 226, 232 202) "[A ncssary prdicat to th application of
Webster hightnd standard [is a statut that purports to dny any judicial forum for
a colorabl constitutional claim); see aso McBryde v Comm to Review Circuit
Counci Conduct & Disabii Orders ofthe udicia Conference of S 264 F.3d 52, 59
C. Cir. 200) th D.C. Circuit "nd[s prclusion o f rviw for both as applid and
facial constitutional challngs only if th vidnc of congrssional intnt to prclud is
clar and convincing' . [and w hav not rgardd broad and smingly
comprhnsiv statutory languag as supplying th ncssary clarity to bar as applid
constitutional claims); ngar v Smith 667 F .2d 88, 9396 D.C . Cir. 98) holding
that statutory languag in 22 U.SC. 63oc) stating administrativ dtrminations
"shall b nal and shall not b subjct to rviw by any court did not bar cours from
haring constitutional claims rlatig to th statut, absnt a clar xprssion of
Congrss s intnt to bar such claims in th statut' s lgislativ history ) . Bcaus FISA
contains no broad and smingly comprhnsiv statutory languag xprssly barring
judicial rviw of any claims undr Sction 86, lt alon any languag dirctd at
33
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
34/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 34 of 68
constitutiona clams n partcular, Congrss has not dmonstratd an ntnt to prclud
consttutonal clams sufcnt to vn trggr th Webster hghtnd standard n th
rst plac, lt alon "clar nough to mt t.
Ths, of cours, maks good sns Th prsumpton that judcal rvw of
consttutonal clams s avalabl n fdral dstrct courts s a strong on, Webster 486
U.S . at 603 , and f th Webster hghtnd standard s to man anythng, t s that
Congrss's ntnt to prclud rvw of consttutonal clams must b much clarr than
that sufcnt to show impied prcluson of statutory clams. Whr, as hr, cor
ndvdual consttutonal rghts ar mplcatd by Govmnt acton Congrss should
not b abl to cut off a ctzn s rght to judcal rvw of that Govrnmnt acton smply
bcaus t ntndd for th conduct to rman scrt by opraton of th dsgn of ts
statutory schm. Whl Congrss has grat lattud to crat statutory schms l k
FISA, t may not hang a cloak of scrcy ovr th Consttuton
B. Preliminar Injuncin
Whn rulng on a moton for prlmnary njuncton, a court must consdr
"whthr (1) th plantff has a substantal lklhood of succss on th mrts; (2) th
plantff would suffr rrparabl njury wr an njuncton not grantd; (3) an njuncton
would substantally njur othr ntrstd parts ; and ( 4) th grant of an njuncton
would furthr th publc ntrst. Sottera nc v. Food & Drug Admin 627 F 3d 89 1 ,
34
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
35/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 35 of 68
893 (DC. Cr 2010) (ntea quotaton marks omtted) I w address each ofthese
factors n tu.
1. Plaints Have Shown a Substantial Likelhood ofSuccess on theMerits.
In addressng pantffs ' ke hood of success on the merts of ther consttutona
cams, I w focus on ther ourth Amendment arguments, whch I nd to be the most
key to succeed. rst, however, I must address pantffs' standng to chaenge the
varous aspects of the Buk Teephony Metadata Program See Jack s Canoes & Kayaks,
LLC v at ! Park Serv 933 . Supp. 2d 58 6 (D.DC 2013) ("The rst component of
the ke hood of success on the merts prong usuay eamnes whether the pant ffs
have standng n a gven case (ntea quotaton marks omtted))
a. Paintiffs Have Standing to Chaenge Buk TeephonyMetadata Coection and Anaysis
"To estabsh Arce III standng, an njury must be concrete, partcuarzed, and
actua or mmnent; fary traceabe to the chaenged acton; and redressabe by a
favorabe rung. Capper v Amnes nt SA 1 33 S. Ct. 1 1 38 1 (201 3 ) (ntea
Our Circui has radiionay appied a "siding scae approach o hese four facors Davis vPension Beneft Guar Corp 57 F3 d 288 29 (DC Cir. 2009) In oher words "a srongshowing on one facor coud make up for a weaker showing on anoher Sherley v. Sebelius,644 F 3d 388 392 (DC Cir 20 ). Foowing he Supreme Court's decision in Winter v
NRDC n 555 US 7 (2008) however our Circui "has suggesed wihou deciding haWinter shoud be read o abandon he siding-scae analysis in favor of a more demandingburden requiring Plainiffs o independenly demonsrae boh a ikelihood of success on hemeris and irreparable harm Smith v Henderson --- F Supp 2d --- 20 3 WL 2099804 a *4(DDC. May 5 20 3) (ciing Sherley, 644 F3d a 392) Regardess of how Winter is read heCourt's analysis here is unaffeced because I concude ha painiffs have made a sufcienshowing of boh a likeihood of success on he meris and irreparabe harm.
See supra noe 7
35
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
36/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 36 of 68
quotaton marks omtted) In apper the Supreme Court held that plantffs lacked
standng to challenge NSA survellance under FISA because ther "hghly speculatve
fear that they would be targeted by surel lance rel ed on a "speculatve chan of
poss b ltes nsufcent to demonstrate a "certanly mpendng njury at 4750
Moreover, the apper plantffs "selfncted njures ( e. , the costs and burdens of
avodng the feared survell ance) could not be traced to any provable govement
actvty at 5053 That s not the case here
The NSAs Bulk Telephony Metadata Program nvolves two potental searches
() the bulk collecton ofmetadata and (2) the analyss ofthat data through the NSAs
queryng process For the fol lowng reasons, I have concluded that the plantffs have
standng to challenge both Frst, as to the collecton, the Supreme Court decded
apperjust months before the June 203 news repors revealed the estence and scope
of ceran NSA surve llance actvtes Thus, whereas the plantffs n apper could only
speculate as to whether they would be survelled at all , plantffs n ths case can pont to
strong evdence that, as Verzon customers, ther telephony metadata has been collected
for the last seven years (and stored for the last ve) and wl l contnue to be col lected
noe in passing one signican difference beween he meadaa coecion a i ssue in his caseand he eecronic surveiance a issue in Clappr As he Cour noed in Clappr, "if heGoveen inends o ue or discose informaion obained or derived from a [50 U.S C. ]
1 8 8 1a acquisiion in judicia or adminisraive proceedings i mus provide advance noice of isinen, and he affeced person may chaenge he awfuness of he acquisiion. 1 33 S . C. a1 1 54 (ciing 50 U.S. C. 1 806(c) 1 806(e) 1 88 1 e(a)) Secions 1 806(c) and (e) and 1 88 1 e(a),however, appy ony o "informaion obained or derived from eecronic survei anceauhorized by specic saues; hey do not appy o business records coeced under Secion1 86 1 . Nor does i appear ha any oher saue requires he Goveen o noi a criminadefendan if i inends o use evidence derived from an anaysis of he buk eephony meadaacoecion
36
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
37/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 37 of 68
barrng judca l or legs latve nterventon Compare i at 1 1 48 ("[Respondents have no
actual knowledge ofthe Govements 1 88 1 a targetng practces) with Ps Mem at
1 n, 78 (ctng SC orders and statements from Drector ofNatonal Intellgence);
Suppl Klayman Aff 3 (attestng to status as Verzon customer) ; Strange Aff
(same) In addton, the Govement has declassed and authentcated an Apr 5 , 0 1 3
ISC Order sgned by Judge Vnson, whch conrms that the NSA has ndeed col lected
teephony metadata from Verzon See Apr 5 , 0 1 3 Secondary Order
Stranng mghtly to nd a reason that plantffs nonetheless lack standng to
challenge the metadata collecton, the Govement argues that Judge Vnsons order
names only Verzon Busness Network Serces ("VBNS) as the recpent of the order,
whereas plantffs clam to be Verzon Wreless subscrbers See Govt s Oppn at 1 &
n9 The Govement obvously wants me to nfer that the NSA may not have col lected
records from Verzon Wreless (or perhaps any other non-VBNS entty, such as AT&T
and Sprnt) Curously, the Govement makes ths argument at the same tme t s
descrbng n ts pleadngs a bulk metadata collecton program that can functon ony
because t creates an hstorcal repostoy ta perm retrospete anas o teror
related communcatons across mute teecommunications networks and that can be
mmedately accessed as new terrorstassocated telephone denters come to lght
Govt s Opp n at 1 (emphass added); see aso i at 5 (court orders to segregate and
destroy ndvdual ltgants records "could ultmately have a degradng effect on the
utlty of the program); Shea Decl 5 (removng plantffs phone numbers "could
undermne the results of any authorzed query of a phone number that based on RAS s
37
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
38/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 38 of 68
assocaed wh one of he dened foregn errors organzaons by emnang, or
cung off poena ca chans)
Pu smpy, he Govemen wans boh ways Vrtuay a of he Govemen' s
brefs and argumens o hs Court epan how he Govemen has aced n good fah o
creae a comprehensive meadaa daabase ha serves as a poenay vauabe oo n
combang errorsmn whch case, he NSA must have coeced meadaa from
Verzon Wreess, he s nge arges wreess carrer n he Uned Saes , as we as
AT&T and Sprn, he second and hrdarges carrers. See Grading the top
carriers in the third quarter of FIERCEWRELESS.COM (Nov. 1 8 20 1 3);
Marguere Reardon, Competitive wireess carriers take on A T&T and Verizon
CNET (Sep. 1 0 201 2) Ye n one foonoe, he Govemen asks me o nd ha
panffs ack sandng based on he heoreca possb y ha he NSA has co eced a
unverse of meadaa so ncompee ha he program coud no possby serve s puave
funcon. Candor of hs ype dees common sense and does no eacy nspre
condence
kewse, I nd ha panffs aso have sandng o chaenge he NSAs queryng
procedures, hough no for he reasons hey pressed a he pre mnary njuncon hearng
hp:Ilw.ercewireesscom/specia-repors/ grading -op-us-carriers-hird -quarer-2 0 1 3
hp://newscnecom/830 1 - 1 03_3- 70803-94/compeiive-wireess-carriers-ake-on-a-ad-verizo.
36 To draw an anaogy if he NSA's program operaes he way he Goveen suggess i doeshe omiing Verizon Wireess AT&T and Sprin from he coecio woud e ike omiigJohn Pau and George from a hisorica anaysis of he Beaes A Rigo-ony daaase doesn make any sese and I cano eieve he Goveme woud creae mainain and so ardenydeend such a sysem
38
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
39/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 39 of 68
At oral argument, I speccaly asked Mr. Klayman whether plantffs had any "bass to
beeve that the NSA has done any queres nvolvng ther phone numbers Transcrpt of
Nov. 18, 013 Prelmnay Injuncton Hearng at , Kayman Kayman ("P.I. Hr'g
Tr) [Dkt# 4 1 . Mr Kayman responded I thnk they are messng wth me ! He
then went on to expan that he and hs c lents had receved nexpcable text messages
and emals, not to menton a dsk contanng a spyware program. ! see aso Strange
Aff 1 1 7 Unforunately for pantffs, none of these unusual occurrences or
nstances of beng "messed wth have anythng to do wth the queston of whether the
NSA has ever quered or anayzed ther telephony metadata so they do not confer
standng on plantffs
The Govement, however, descrbes the advantages of buk collecton n such a
way as to convnce me that plantffs' metadatandeed everyone s metadatas
analyzed, manualy or automatcally, whenever the Government runs a quey usng as
the "seed a phone number or denter assocated wth a phone for whch the NSA has
not collected metadata (e.g., phones operatng through foregn phone companes)
Accordng to the declaraton submtted by NSA Drector of Sgnas Intelgence
Drectorate ("SID) Teresa H. Shea, the data collected as part of the Bulk Telephony
Metadata Programhad t been n place at that tmewould have a owed the NSA to
determne that a September 1 1 hjacker lvng n the Unted States had contacted a known
a Qaeda safe house n Yemen Shea Decl 1 1 Presumably, the NSA s not collectng
Ot 203 Prmary order at ("Queres o the R metadata usg Sapprovedseetion terms may our either by manual anayst query or through the automated queryproess desribed beow) ; alo pra note 22.
39
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
40/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 40 of 68
meadaa from whaever Yemen eephone company was servcng ha safehouse, whch
means ha he meadaa program remedes he nvesgave probem n Drecor Shea's
eampe ony he meadaa can be quered o deermne whch caers n he Uned
Saes had ever conaced or been conaced by he arge Yemen safehouse number. See
aso Shea Dec . 44 (he meadaa coecon aows NSA anayss o, among oher
hngs, "deec foregn deners assocaed h a foregn errors organzaon cang
no he U.S and dscover whch domesc deners are n conac wh he foregn
deners.). When he NSA rns such a query, s sysem mus necessary anayze
meadaa for every phone number n he daabase by comparng he foregn arge number
agans a of he sored ca records o deermne whch U. S. phones, f any, have
neraced wh he arge number. 38 Moreover, unke a DNA or ngerprn daabase
whch conans ony a snge "snapsho record of each person herenhe NSA's
daabase s updaed every snge day wh new nformaon abou each phone number
Compare ohnson v Quander 440 3d 489 49899 (D C. Cr 00), with Gov.'s
Opp'n a 89 Because he Govemen can use day meadaa coecon o engage n
The dierence beween querying a phone number belonging o a domesic Verizon subscriber(or which meadaa has been colleced and querying a oreign number (or which meadaa hasno been colleced migh be analogized as ollows . query ha begins wih a domesic USphone number is like enering a library and looking o nd all o he sources ha are cied inBattle Cry ofFreedom by James M McPherson (Oxord Universiy Press 1 988 ). You nd haspecic book, open i, and here hey are "Hop one is complee Then, you wan o nd all hesources cied wihin each o hose sources ("hop wo, and so on he end o a very long day,you have looked only a books, aricles, ec ha were lied o Battle Cry of Freedom.
Querying a oreign phone number is l ike enering a library and rying o nd every bookha cies Battle Cry ofFreedom as a source I migh be reerenced in a housand books migh be in jus en I could be in zero The only way o know is o check every book heend o a very long monh you are le wih he "hop one resuls (hose books ha cie Battle CryofFreedom) bu o ge here, you had o open every book in he library
40
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
41/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 41 of 68
"epettve, suepttous suvellance of a ctzen's pvate gongs on, the NSA database
"mplcates the Fouh Amendment each tme a govement ofcal montos t
ohnson 440 F 3d at 49899 (dstngushng DNA pole n a law enfocement
databasewhch s not seached each tme database s accessedfom a "constantly
updat[ng vdeo feed, and wang that "futue technologcal advances n DNA testng
may empowe the govement to conduct wde-angng DNA dagnets' that ase
justable ctatons to Geoge Owell ) And the NSA can access ts database wheneve
t wants, epeatedly queyng any seed appoved n the last 180 days (fo tems beleved
to be used by U S pesons) o yea (fo all othe tems) See Oct 1 1 , 0 1 3 Pmay
Ode at 1 0
I is irreevan for Fourh Amendmen purposes ha he NSA migh someimes use auomaedanayica soware C Smith, 442 U S a 744-45 ("We are no incined o hod ha a differen
consiuiona resu is required because he eephone company has decided o auomae)
The Goveen conends ha "he mere coecion of Painiffs' eephony meadaa wihou review of he daa pursuan o a query canno be considered a search "because heGoveen's acquisiion of an iem wihou examining is conens does no compromise heineres in preserving he privacy of is conens ' Gov s pp'n a 49 n 33 (quoing Hrtn v.Calrnia 496 US 28, 4 n ( 990) ciing Unite States v. Van Leeuwen 397 US 249,252-53 ( 970)) The cases on which he Govemen reies are inapposie Hrtn invoved heseizure of angibe iems under he pain view docrine 496 U S a 4 42 The Goveenquoes dica abou wheher he seizure of a physica conainer consiues a search of heconainers conens ! a 4 n Likewise he Cour in Van Leeuwen addressed wheherhe deenion of a package consiued an unreasonabe seizure 397 U S a 25253
I n he case ofhe buk eephony meadaa coecion, here is no anaogous "conainerha remains seaed raher, a of he meadaa is handed by he Goveen, at least o hedegree needed o inegrae he meadaa ino he NSAs daabase See Shea Dec 7, 60(goveen may access meadaa for purpose of "rendering [i] useabe o query because "each[eecom provider may no mainain records in a forma ha is subjec o a sandardized query)Thus, unike he conens of he conainer described in Hrtn eephony eadaa is no kep inan unmoesed, opaque package ha obscures i from he Goveen's view
4 1
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
42/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 42 of 68
Accordngy, pantffs meet the standng requrements set forth n Capper as
they can demonstrate that the NSA has coected and anayzed the teephony metadata
and w contnue to operate the pogram consstent wth ISC opnons and orders.
Whether dong so voates pantffs' ourth Amendment rghts s, of course, a separate
queston and the subject of the net secton, whch addresses the merts of the cams.
See nited States Lawson 4 1 0 3d 73 , 740 n4 (D.C. Cr. 00) ("[Athough couts
sometmes refer to the reasonabe epectaton of prvacy ssue as standng' to contest a
seach, the queston s more propery paced wthn the purvew of substantve outh
Amendment aw than wthn that of standng.' (quotng Minnesota Carter U.S.
83, 88 (1 998)).
b. Plainis Are Likey o Succeed on he Meris o TheirFourh Amendmen Claim
The ourth Amendment protects "[the rght of the peope to be secure n ther
persons, houses, papers, and effects, aganst uneasonabe searches and sezures. U. S.
C. amend IV. That ght "sha not be voated, and no Warants sha ssue, but
upon pobabe cause, suppoted by Oath or afmaton, and partcuay descbng the
pace to be searched, and the persons o thngs to be sezed . A ourth Amendment
"seach occus ether when "the Govement obtans nformaton by physcay
ntrudng on a consttutonay protected area, nited States ones 13 S. Ct. 94, 90n 3 (0 1 ), or when "the govement voates a subjectve epectaton of pvacy that
socety ecognzes as reasonabe, Kyo nited States 3 3 U.S. 7, 33 (00 1 ) (ctng
4
-
7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion
43/68
Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 43 of 68
Katz United States 3 89 U S 347, 3 1 ( 1 97) (Haran, J, concurrng)). Ths case
obvousy does not nvove a physca ntruson, and pantffs do not cam otherwse .
The threshod ssue that I must address, then, s whether p antffs have a
reasonabe epectaton of prvacy that s voated when the Govement ndscrmnatey
coects ther teephony metadata aong wth the metadata of hundreds of m ons of
other ctzens wthout any pacuarzed suspcon of wrongdong, retans a of that
metadata for ve years, and then queres, anayzes, and nvestgates that data wthout
pror udca approva of the nvestgatve targets. If they doand a ourth Amendment
search has thus occurredthen the net step of the anays s w be to determne whether
such a search s "reasonabe. See i at 3 1 (whether a search has occurred s an
"antecedent queston to whether a search was reasonabe)
. The Cllectn and Analyss f Teephnyetadata Cnsttutes a Seach.
The anayss of ths threshod ssue of the epectaton of prvacy must start wth
the Supreme Cour's andmark opnon n Smith aryand 44 U.S 73 5 ( 1 979) whch
the ISC has sad "squarey contro[s when t comes to "[the producton ofteephone
servce provder metadata. Am Mem Op , In re Appication o the [FBI] or a
top related