The FISA modification being put to use to dispose of litigation.
Notice that this is aimed at only one plaintiff, likely one whose claim is based on the allegation of actual interception, rather than on a claim of having call records transferred from the telco to the government.
CCR IN COURT TODAY TO CHALLENGE NSA DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM AND NEW FISA LAW
According to attorneys, there are substantial questions about whether the new law, which is temporary and due to expire in six months, is constitutional, and they will seek permission to file additional legal papers to that effect today.
I think this plaintiff's case will be thrown out on absence of standing, just as the plaintiffs who survived a motion to dismiss before Judge Taylor in Michigan ultimately lost on a reversal by the Sixth Circuit due to inability to allege they were in fact under warrantless surveillance.
Government notice of statute ...
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 345 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 5 1 PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division 2 CARL J. NICHOLS Deputy Assistant Attorney General 3 JOSEPH H. HUNT Director, Federal Programs Branch 4 ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Special Litigation Counsel 5 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org ANDREW H. TANNENBAUM 6 Trial Attorney Email: email@example.com 7 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 8 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. 6102 Washington, D.C. 20001 9 Phone: (202) 514-4782/(202) 514-4263 Fax: (202) 616-8460 10 Attorneys for Defendants 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 ) No. M:06-cv-01791-VRW IN RE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY ) 15 TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS ) DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF LITIGATION ) STATUTORY AMENDMENTS TO THE 16 ) FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE _______________________________________) SURVEILLANCE ACT 17 ) This Document Relates Only To: ) Judge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 18 ) Date: August 9, 2007 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush, ) Time: 2 p.m. 19 (Case No. 07-1115) ) Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor ) 20 ) ) 21 _______________________________________) 22 23 24 25 26 27
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 345 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 5 1 DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF STATUTORY AMENDMENTS TO THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT 2 Defendants hereby give notice of the attached statute, signed into law by the President on 3 August 5, 2007. See S. 1927, 110th Cong., 153 Cong. Rec. H9952-05 (enacted) (attached as 4 Exhibit A). The statute, entitled the Protect America Act of 2007, amends the Foreign 5 Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") in a manner that bears directly on this case. 6 First, the statute amends FISA by clarifying that "[n]othing in the definition of electronic 7 surveillance under [50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)] shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at 8 a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." Id. § 2 (adding § 105A 9 to FISA). 10 Second, the statute sets forth new procedures for authorizing acquisitions of foreign 11 intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. 12 See id. (adding § 105B to FISA). In relevant part, the Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") 13 and Attorney General may authorize such acquisitions for periods of up to one year if they 14 determine, inter alia, that there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the 15 acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States; the acquisition 16 does not constitute electronic surveillance as defined by FISA; a significant purpose of the 17 acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and the minimization procedures to be 18 used with respect to such acquisition activity meet the definition of minimization procedures 19 under 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h). Id. The determination of the DNI and Attorney General may be 20 made orally if immediate action is required, but shall be reduced to a sworn written certification 21 within 72 hours and transmitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ("FISC") "as soon 22 as practicable." Id. The DNI and Attorney General are also authorized under the statute to 23 direct a person to provide information, facilities, and assistance necessary to accomplish the 24 acquisition and in such a manner as to preserve secrecy. See id. The Government may request 25 the FISC to enforce the directive, which the FISC shall do if the directive was issued in 26 accordance with the directive provision and is otherwise lawful, and the person may challenge
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 345 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 3 of 5 1 the legality of the directive with a FISC judge pursuant to certain procedures. See id. 2 Third, the statute provides for judicial review by the FISC of the procedures by which the 3 Government determines that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute 4 electronic surveillance. See id. § 3 (adding § 105C to FISA). Within 120 days of enactment, and 5 annually thereafter, the Attorney General is required to submit those procedures to the FISC, and 6 within 180 days of enactment the FISC is required to assess the Government's determination that 7 the procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that the acquisitions do not constitute 8 electronic surveillance. Id. If the FISC concludes that the Government's determination is 9 clearly erroneous, it shall direct the Government to submit new procedures within 30 days or 10 cease any implicated acquisitions; otherwise, it shall approve the continued use of such 11 procedures. Id. The Government may appeal any adverse order to the Foreign Intelligence 12 Surveillance Court of Review and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, and any affected acquisitions 13 may continue during the pendency of the appeal. See id. 14 Fourth, the statute provides for congressional oversight by requiring the Attorney General 15 on a semi-annual basis to inform the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House 16 Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the House 17 Judiciary Committee of the number of certifications and directives issued, as well as any 18 incidents of non-compliance. See id. § 4. The DNI and Attorney General are also required to 19 assess compliance with minimization procedures and report such assessments to the Senate 20 Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 21 See id. § 2 (§ 105B(d)). 22 Finally, the statute expires 180 days after the date of enactment, although authorizations 23 for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the statute shall remain in 24 effect until their expiration, and the Government has the option during the 180 days to continue 25 to seek the FISC's authorization or reauthorization of surveillance under the provisions of FISA 26 as they existed on the day before enactment of these amendments. See id. § 6.
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 345 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 4 of 5 1 *** 2 This action should be dismissed for all of the reasons that we have previously explained, 3 regardless of the foregoing FISA amendments. Because the basis for Plaintiffs' claims is their 4 alleged communications with individuals located outside of the United States suspected of links 5 to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, however, the FISA amendments provide an additional basis 6 for dismissal. See Compl. ¶¶ 3-5, 36-44. Indeed, now that Congress, in returning to the balance 7 it generally struck when it enacted FISA in 1978, has expressly clarified that surveillance 8 directed at individuals reasonably believed to be outside the United States does not constitute 9 electronic surveillance as defined in FISA, Plaintiffs cannot claim that any alleged surveillance 10 directed at individuals outside the United States violates FISA, the Administrative Procedure 11 Act, or the separation of powers doctrine. Moreover, because the statute subjects such 12 surveillance to certain procedures, minimization requirements, FISC review, and congressional 13 oversight, Plaintiffs' allegations of a First Amendment chill are further negated. By Plaintiffs' 14 own description, their alleged chill derives from their belief that the now-inoperative Terrorist 15 Surveillance Program did not involve FISA minimization procedures, and while we have 16 explained why that alleged chill was plainly insufficient before the FISA amendments, the 17 statute now expressly applies FISA minimization procedures to surveillance conducted pursuant 18 to the amendments and directed at individuals outside the United States. ^1 19 The fact that the Protect America Act is set to expire in six months should not delay the 20 Court from dismissing this case on any number of valid grounds previously identified by 21 Defendants. As we have explained, Plaintiffs' allegations of injury were never sufficient from 22 the outset of this case, and state secrets would be needed to fully adjudicate Plaintiffs' claims. 23 Moreover, while the sunset provision should not preclude the Court from granting our motion to 24 dismiss or for summary judgment at any time, it should, at the very least, preclude the Court 25 26 1 Although the statutory amendments may not be dispositive of a Fourth Amendment 27 claim, Plaintiffs have abandoned any claim of actual interception.
Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 345 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 5 of 5 1 from granting Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion during the next six months when FISA, on 2 its face, clarifies that surveillance directed at individuals reasonably believed to be outside the 3 United States does not constitute "electronic surveillance." ^2 4 5 DATED: August 8, 2007 Respectfully Submitted, 6 PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division 7 CARL J. NICHOLS 8 Deputy Assistant Attorney General 9 JOSEPH H. HUNT Director, Federal Programs Branch 10 /s/ Anthony J. Coppolino 11 ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Special Litigation Counsel 12 firstname.lastname@example.org 13 /s/ Andrew H. Tannenbaum ANDREW H. TANNENBAUM 14 Trial Attorney email@example.com 15 U.S. Department of Justice 16 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 17 Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: (202) 514-4782 18 (202) 514-4263 Fax: (202) 616-8460 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 Of course, we submit that the Court should not grant Plaintiffs' summary judgment 25 motion in any event, not only for the various reasons that we have argued in support of dismissal, but also because, as we have explained, at the very least the state secrets questions 26 must be conclusively decided before Defendants could adequately respond to the merits of 27 Plaintiffs' motion.
March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 March 2009 April 2009