690 F.3d 1089
9th Cir.2012Background
- Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and lawyers sued the United States entities alleging warrantless surveillance under FISA, focusing on a Sealed Document disclosed in 2004.
- District court held that FISA preempts the state secrets privilege and that §1810 implicitly waives sovereign immunity, allowing damages.
- Court on remand required non-classified evidence to establish aggrieved status and proceeded to summary judgment on FISA liability, ultimately granting relief to Al-Haramain on the merits.
- Treasury/OFA and FBI defendants argued no explicit waiver of sovereign immunity under §1810, and Mueller's personal liability claims were dismissed as insufficient.
- Court determined §1810 does not include an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity and cannot be read to authorize damages against the United States, leading to reversal of damages and related awards.
- Case ends with dismissal of Mueller personally and judgment vacated/partially reversed, affirming in part and vacating in part the prior district court relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1810 waives sovereign immunity | Al-Haramain contends §1810 authorizes damages against the United States | Government argues no explicit waiver in §1810; immunity remains | No explicit waiver; district court erred |
| Whether Mueller can be held personally liable | Mueller's actions alleged to be official misconduct open to individual liability | Insufficient facts to state personal FISA claim | Mueller’s personal liability dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (explicit waiver required; no implicit waiver found)
- Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1441 (2012) (statutory waivers must be clearly discernible)
- Mohamad v. Palestinian Auth., 132 S. Ct. 1702 (2012) (textual interpretation of waivers in statutory schemes)
- Lane v. Peña, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (no broad governmental immunity inferred from general references)
- Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008) (statutory text and tools of construction govern waivers)
- Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 (1976) (Title VII-like reasoning not applicable to sovereign immunity in this context)
- In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., 671 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (recounted PATRIOT Act amendments affecting immunity)
- Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) (contextual statutory interpretation within overall scheme)
- ACLU v. NSA, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007) (discussed scope of government surveillance and immunity considerations)