On January 17, 2006, a group of organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a number of individuals, filed a law suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the National Security Agency (NSA), under Bivens and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs challenged the legality of NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) as violating their free speech and privacy rights as well as the Separation of Powers doctrine. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, asked the court for declaratory judgment and permanent injunction.

The plaintiffs alleged that their regular conduct (e.g., journalism, the practice of law, and scholarship) have been impaired by the TSP, which violated various portions of the U.S. Constitution. The NSA countered that the plaintiffs: (1) lacked standing; and (2) could not establish a prima facie case without the use of state secrets, so that the state secret privilege barred plaintiffs' claims.

On August 17, 2006, the District Court (Judge Anna Diggs Taylor) disagreed with most of the NSA's arguments, and issued a judgment and permanent injunction order: (1) the TSP violated the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and (2) the NSA was enjoined from utilizing the TSP including conducting wireless wiretaps of telephone and internet communication, as violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III. The plaintiffs' data-mining claims were denied. The same day, the NSA filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

The 6th Circuit stayed the operation of the the district court's injunction, 467 F.3d 590 (6th Cir., Oct. 4, 2006) and then on July 6, 2007, vacated the District Court's order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs lacked standing. 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007). On March 3, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review. 552 U.S. 1179.

David Cho - 10/05/2014


compress summary