University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Twitter v. Sessions NS-CA-0013
Docket / Court 4:14-cv-4480 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) National Security
Special Collection Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- All Matters
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- Foreign Targeting (702, 703, 704)
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- Internet Metadata
Case Summary
[Note: This case was previously known as Twitter v. Holder, then Twitter v. Lynch.]

On October 7, 2014, Twitter -- an online social networking service -- filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and ... read more >
[Note: This case was previously known as Twitter v. Holder, then Twitter v. Lynch.]

On October 7, 2014, Twitter -- an online social networking service -- filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), under the Administrative Procedure Act. Twitter, represented by private counsel, asked the court for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, alleging that nondisclosure provisions set forth in a letter from the Deputy Attorney General ("the DAG Letter") and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) secrecy provisions were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Twitter also contended that the review mechanisms for seeking to modify the nondisclosure provisions violate the separation of power principles.

Specifically, the FBI sometimes issues National Security Letters ("NSLs") to communication providers, compelling them to disclose information deemed relevant for protecting against terrorism. The FBI also issues FISA orders that permit surveillance or disclosure of stored records. Recipients of a NSL or a FISA order are restricted from disclosing information from that order.

In 2013, in response to these restrictions, five communication providers (including Google and Facebook) filed a lawsuit to relax restrictions for publishing information such as the total number of requests and user accounts encompassed by such requests. In January 2014, the DOJ and the five providers settled. Two preapproved disclosure formats were set forth in the DAG Letter, which was dated January 27, 2014.

Twitter, the plaintiff in this case, had a practice of releasing transparency reports that listed the number of requests from the government for account information and content removal, and how Twitter responded to such requests. At the time of the complaint, the reports did not contain information regarding NSL and FISA orders. On January 29, 2014, the plaintiff met with the defendants and sought confirmation that the DAG Letter (of January 27, 2014) did not apply to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted a draft report to the FBI seeking prepublication review; the draft included numeric information of NSL and FISA orders received. The FBI denied prepublication on a basis that the contained information exceeded the scope set forth in the DAG Letter. This first amendment complaint ensued.

On October 17, 2014, the government declined to proceed before a magistrate judge, and the case was subsequently reassigned to District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on October 20, 2014.

On January 9, 2015, the government filed a partial motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The government argued that: 1. The court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to establish an injury-in-fact and therefore lacked standing, and because the DAG Letter did not constitute a final agency act under the Administrative Procedure Act; 2. FISA challenges should instead have been considered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; and 3. The Plaintiff's separation of powers challenge to the disclosure review mechanisms failed as a matter of law because deference to the Executive was entirely appropriate in this context.

In February 2015, a number of popular digital media organizations filed amici briefs on behalf of Twitter, including Buzzfeed, National Public Radio, and Reddit.

A hearing was held on the government’s motion to dismiss on May 5, 2015, but before Judge Rogers could rule, the defendants notified her in June 2015 of the passage of the USA Freedom Act. The USA Freedom Act reauthorized portions of the USA Patriot Act, but eliminated the Patriot Act’s bulk data collection provisions. Notably for this case, the Act added options for those who had been subject to NSL or FISA orders to publicly report information about orders received, and amended the judicial review process for NSL nondisclosure requirements.

Judge Rogers subsequently called for briefings on the impact of the Act on the pending partial motion for summary judgment and on the case as a whole. The plaintiff argued that the legislative changes did not affect the defendant's pending partial motion to dismiss, should not affect Twitter’s APA or First Amendment claims, and changed, but did not moot, its First Amendment and separation of powers claim. The government argued that passage of the Act made the plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act and First Amendment challenges moot, and that the Act reinforced the constitutionality of the NSL statutes.

On October 14, 2015, after receiving all supplemental briefs, the Judge Rogers dismissed the government’s motion to dismiss as moot and ordered Twitter to file an amended complaint in light of the changes under the USA Freedom Act. 139 F.Supp.3d 1075. Twitter filed its amended complaint on November 13, 2015. In light of the new legislation, Twitter sought declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction, arguing that the non-disclosure provisions of FISA were unconstitutional on their fact, that the government’s actions showed a pattern of “informal, overly expansive, delayed and conflicting” actions that had a chilling effect on speech and limited Twitter’s first amendment rights. It also argued that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional as applied to Twitter, and sought declaratory relief to that effect, expressing its concern that Twitter would be prosecuted under the Espionage Act should it choose to publish its Transparency Report.

The government filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 15, 2016. It argued that the court should dismiss the FISA claims in the interest of comity, that Twitter failed to establish standing with respect to its Espionage Act claims, and that all of Twitter’s claims should fail as a matter of law since the government may lawfully restrict disclosure of classified information.

On May 2, 2016, Judge Rogers granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Judge Rogers denied the motion to dismiss on the grounds of comity and concluded that Twitter had standing under the Espionage Act, but had not sufficiently plead its First Amendment claims. 183 F.Supp.3d 1007. Three weeks later, Twitter filed a second amended complaint. In it, Twitter alleged an implied cause of action under the First Amendment and a cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act. Twitter claimed that the information it sought to disclose was improperly classified, and that the government failed to specify which specific information in its report could not be published.

On November 22, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. It was denied without prejudice on July 6, 2017. The government filed a motion to reconsider on September 5, 2017, which Judge Rogers denied on November 28, 2017. The case is still pending as of February 2018.

David Cho - 10/26/2014
Alexandra Gilewicz - 02/12/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Freedom of speech/association
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Law-enforcement
General
Records Disclosure
Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Bivens
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Justice
Plaintiff Description Twitter, a global information sharing and distribution network
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Filing Year 2014
Case Ongoing Yes
Docket(s)
3:14-cv-4480 (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0013-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
NS-CA-0013-0001.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 10/07/2014
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Partial Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 28]
NS-CA-0013-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/09/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings [ECF# 33]
NS-CA-0013-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/26/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amicus Curiae Freedom of the Press Foundation in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 52-1]
NS-CA-0013-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/17/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Supplemental Brief Regarding the USA Freedom Act [ECF# 74]
NS-CA-0013-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/17/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Twitter's Opening Supplemental Brief on Effect of Recent Legislation [ECF# 75]
NS-CA-0013-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/17/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Twitter's Reply Supplemental Brief on Effect of Recent Legislation [ECF# 76]
NS-CA-0013-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/07/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Reply Addressing Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief Regarding the USA Freedom Act [ECF# 77]
NS-CA-0013-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/07/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot and, On the Court's Own Motion, Ordering Filing of Amended Complaint in Light of Recent Legislation [ECF# 85] (139 F.Supp.3d 1075) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0013-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 10/14/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief 28. U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 [ECF# 88]
NS-CA-0013-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/13/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF# 94]
NS-CA-0013-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/15/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [ECF# 113] (183 F.Supp.3d 1007) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0013-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/02/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 [ECF# 114]
NS-CA-0013-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/24/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF# 145]
NS-CA-0013-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/22/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Government's Motion for Summary Judgment Without Prejudice: Granting Twitter's Motion for Order Directing Defendants to Expedite Security Clearance [ECF# 172] (263 F.Supp.3d 803) (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0013-0015.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/06/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Rogers, Yvonne Gonzalez (N.D. Cal.)
NS-CA-0013-0002 | NS-CA-0013-0009 | NS-CA-0013-0012 | NS-CA-0013-0015 | NS-CA-0013-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Andrade, Amanda Lindsay (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-0006 | NS-CA-0013-0007 | NS-CA-0013-0010 | NS-CA-0013-9000
Berlin, Hayley L. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-0001 | NS-CA-0013-0006 | NS-CA-0013-0007 | NS-CA-0013-0010 | NS-CA-0013-9000
Falk, Donald M (California)
NS-CA-0013-9000
Miller, Eric David (Washington)
NS-CA-0013-0001 | NS-CA-0013-0006 | NS-CA-0013-0007 | NS-CA-0013-0010 | NS-CA-0013-0011 | NS-CA-0013-9000
Pincus, Andrew J. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-9000
Rubin, Lee H (California)
NS-CA-0013-0013 | NS-CA-0013-9000
Snell, James (California)
NS-CA-0013-0001 | NS-CA-0013-0002 | NS-CA-0013-0006 | NS-CA-0013-0007 | NS-CA-0013-0010 | NS-CA-0013-9000
Sussmann, Michael A. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-0001 | NS-CA-0013-0002 | NS-CA-0013-0006 | NS-CA-0013-0007 | NS-CA-0013-0010 | NS-CA-0013-0013 | NS-CA-0013-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Berman, Julia Alexandra (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-0002 | NS-CA-0013-0004 | NS-CA-0013-0005 | NS-CA-0013-0008 | NS-CA-0013-0011 | NS-CA-0013-0014 | NS-CA-0013-9000
Branda, Joyce R. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-0004
Bressler, Steven Y. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-0002 | NS-CA-0013-0004 | NS-CA-0013-0005 | NS-CA-0013-0008 | NS-CA-0013-0011 | NS-CA-0013-9000
Coppolino, Anthony J. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-0004 | NS-CA-0013-0005 | NS-CA-0013-0008 | NS-CA-0013-0011 | NS-CA-0013-0014
Haag, Melinda (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-0004 | NS-CA-0013-0005 | NS-CA-0013-0008
Mizer, Benjamin C. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-0005 | NS-CA-0013-0008 | NS-CA-0013-0014
Soskin, Eric J. (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-0014 | NS-CA-0013-9000
Stretch, Brian (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-0011 | NS-CA-0013-0014
Other Lawyers Adler, Deborah A (California)
NS-CA-0013-9000
Burke, Thomas R. (California)
NS-CA-0013-9000
Crocker, Andrew (California)
NS-CA-0013-9000
Gratz, Joseph C (California)
NS-CA-0013-0003 | NS-CA-0013-9000
Greene, David Allen (California)
NS-CA-0013-9000
Hofmann, Marcia (California)
NS-CA-0013-9000
Karanjia, Peter (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-9000
KatieLynn, Townsend (District of Columbia)
NS-CA-0013-9000
Opsahl, Kurt Bradford (California)
NS-CA-0013-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -