On August 8, 2015, six U.S. citizens who had their email, text message, and telephone call metadata collected by the government during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, filed suit against the National Security Agency ("NSA") and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). The plaintiffs challenged the legality of the domestic surveillance program and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as statutory, actual, and punitive damages. The plaintiffs brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the district of Utah under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"), the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications, and the Privacy Act. They alleged violations of these acts and of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and of Article I, § 14 of the Utah Constitution. The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel.
In October of 2001, then President George W. Bush authorized the NSA, in conjunction with the FBI, to intercept the international phone calls and international emails of people within the United States without a warrant. The operation, known as "the President's Surveillance Program," collected email, text message, and telephone call metadata, which was stored in a "security compartment" code-named "STELLARWIND."
Before and during the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, this surveillance was expanded in and around Salt Lake City and other Olympic venues. This expansion covered the metadata on every phone call made to and from individuals within the Salt Lake City area, as well as the content of every text message and email to and from those individuals. The plaintiffs were all living and working within the Salt Lack City area during this period, and frequently used the targeted communications methods.
The plaintiffs claimed this program of warrant-less surveillance was a violation of their rights under the First and Fourth Amendments, Article I, § 14 of the Utah Constitution, and several other Federal laws that govern government surveillance of individuals within the United States.
The government moved to dismiss the suit on December 18, 2015, claiming a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that the plaintiffs, (1) failed to plausibly allege their standing, (2) had not otherwise alleged the existence of a live case or controversy to support their claim for equitable relief, (3) failed to plausibly allege their standing in regard to similar surveillance they alleged was continuing, (4) did not plausibly allege standing to seek monetary relief, and (5) made claims for monetary relief that were barred by sovereign immunity. The plaintiffs filed a response to the motion to dismiss on February 18, 2016.
The court denied the motion on January 10, 2017, finding the plaintiffs had established a plausible claim that they had suffered a redressable injury. The court held that it was not its role at this stage of the litigation to analyze the likelihood of the allegations being true. 228 F.Supp.3d 1271.
On September 27, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss (that is, withdraw) the case. In their motion, they reiterated their position that their rights were violated, but stated that because of the defendants' extensive use of the "state secrets doctrine," discovery had been fruitless. The plaintiffs decided that further litigation of the case would not be beneficial.
The same day, the court dismissed the action.
Ian Williams - 09/29/2016
Virginia Weeks - 03/25/2018
Gregory Marsh - 06/12/2020
compress summary
