American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper
804 F.3d 617
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- ACLU and NYCLU challenge NSA bulk metadata program as authorized by §215 of the Patriot Act; Freedom Act enacted to end bulk collection and impose a 180-day transition to a targeted regime.
- Freedom Act amended §215 and delayed its effective provisions for 180 days to allow an orderly transition to targeted collection.
- District court briefing and appellate briefing address whether the 180-day transition permits continued bulk collection during that period.
- ODNI announced retention and later destruction plans for §215 data, and the government sought to continue collection for the transition period via FISC approval.
- Court previously held §215 did not authorize bulk collection; Freedom Act now governs during the transition, creating contested timing for cessation of bulk collection.
- Appellants seek preliminary injunctions to halt collection, quarantine already collected data, and bar querying of their records during the transition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is bulk collection authorized during the 180-day transition? | ACLU asserts no authorization. | Government argues transition permits continuation to orderly shift. | Yes, during transition the bulk program is authorized. |
| Are the claims moot after November 29? | Claims survive to seek post-transition relief. | Post-transition mootness anticipated; records will be destroyed. | Not moot at this time; remand for district court on final relief. |
| Should a preliminary injunction be granted to halt collection during transition? | Likelihood of success and irreparable harm. | legislative transition warrants no injunction. | Denied; transition continuity permitted pending district proceedings. |
| Should constitutional issues be addressed now? | §215 violates Fourth and First Amendments. | Defer constitutional ruling; respect Congress’s transition plan. | Not reached; court defers given narrow, temporary relief and transition context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015) (previous holding that bulk collection exceeded §215 authority)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (established requirements for preliminary injunctions)
- Doe v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006) (remand when legislative changes affect the case)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (U.S. 2001) (reason for avoiding superfluous statutory provisions)
- King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (U.S. 2015) (interpret statutes in context; avoid superfluousness)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (privacy expectations and modern technology interplay)