On February 5, 2014, two activists filed this lawsuit
pro se in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs sued the National Security Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice under Bivens. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their First, Fourth, and Fifth ...
read more >
On February 5, 2014, two activists filed this lawsuit
pro se in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs sued the National Security Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice under Bivens. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment Rights and requested declaratory relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants subjected the plaintiffs to a mass surveillance program which directed Verizon to collect telephone records for over one million Americans which, according to the complaint, was revealed by
The Guardian in an article published on June 6, 2013. This case is part of a series of lawsuits filed against the NSA for its "Bulk Telephony Metadata Program," which was authorized under Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"). (These cases can be found as a part of a
special collection on the Clearinghouse.)
On January 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and the plaintiffs failed to state claims on which relief may be granted. The plaintiffs responded that they did have valid Constitutional claims, and noted that in other cases--specifically,
ACLU v. Clapper (
NS-NY-0003),
Klayman v. Obama (
NS-DC-0007), and
Smith v. Obama (
NS-ID-0001)--courts had found that similar plaintiffs did have standing.
On August 6, 2015, Judge Kathleen Cardone issued an order staying this case for six months and denying the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Judge Cardone noted that the plaintiffs' case was based on ongoing court proceedings in the aforementioned
Klayman,
Smith, and
ACLU cases, and as such the plaintiffs were also waiting on the outcomes of these cases to determine how to proceed in this action. Judge Cardone allowed the plaintiffs to move to reopen this case in six months. This case was administratively closed. The case was not reopened within the allotted six months, and there have been no updates to the docket since August 2015.
John He - 09/27/2015
Dawn Lui - 10/19/2018
compress summary
