Jewel v. National Security Agency, 810 F.3d 622

Background

Plaintiffs (Jewel and others) sued the U.S., NSA, and officials alleging large-scale warrantless Internet and phone surveillance involving AT&T and the NSA (Upstream collection and related FISA §702 activity).
The original complaint asserted 17 claims (constitutional and statutory) seeking injunctive relief and damages; district court initially dismissed for lack of standing; Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded to consider state-secrets privilege.
On remand the district court resolved several statutory issues (declining to dismiss on state secrets grounds in full; addressing FISA preemption, sovereign immunity, and relief limits) but left many constitutional claims unresolved.
Three plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on one aspect of their Fourth Amendment Internet-interception claim (limited to Upstream collection); district court denied the motion, finding insufficient evidence of the plaintiffs’ proffered operational facts and that resolution would risk disclosure of state secrets.
The district court then certified that single Fourth Amendment ruling as final under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); the government moved to dismiss the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Ninth Circuit held the Rule 54(b) certification improper because the Fourth Amendment Internet-interception ruling is intertwined with remaining claims and parties, creating a risk of piecemeal appeals and delaying final resolution; appeal dismissed and case remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court properly certified partial final judgment under Rule 54(b)	Certification appropriate because plaintiffs sought a discrete, severable ruling limited to Internet Upstream Fourth Amendment claim	Certification improper because the Fourth Amendment Internet claim is intertwined with other claims, parties, and facts; would produce piecemeal appeals	Certification not warranted; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the Fourth Amendment Internet-interception claim was sufficiently distinct factually to permit immediate appeal	Upstream collection claim is a distinct, reviewable subset of the litigation	The Internet claims share common facts, legal theories, and overlap with other constitutional and statutory claims	Not distinct enough; would inevitably return on same facts
Whether interlocutory appeal would avoid delay and promote sound judicial administration	Immediate review would advance closure on at least part of the case	Interlocutory review would more likely prolong proceedings and halt district-court work	No just reason for delay; interlocutory appeal counterproductive
Whether standing/state-secrets findings could be cabined to the single Fourth Amendment claim	Plaintiffs: standing and state-secrets rulings limited to the Internet Fourth Amendment claim	Government: standing and state-secrets implications affect multiple claims; rulings cannot realistically be confined	Court found the standing and state-secrets rationale could not be practically limited; supports denial of certification

Key Cases Cited

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1980) (appellate review of Rule 54(b) certifications should scrutinize juridical concerns and avoid piecemeal appeals)
Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897 (U.S. 2015) (Rule 54(b) adopted to avoid injustice of delaying judgment on distinct claims; appellate opportunities enhanced)
Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2005) (analyze whether certified order is divisible so case would not inevitably return on same facts)
Noel v. Hall, 568 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2009) (lack of district-court findings not jurisdictional if appellate court can independently assess propriety)
Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962 (9th Cir. 1981) (encourages district courts to explain Rule 54(b) certifications to aid appellate review)
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2003) (partial summary judgment usually not appealable final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291)
Spiegel v. Trustees of Tufts Coll., 843 F.2d 38 (1st Cir. 1988) (Rule 54(b) rarely appropriate when the parties on appeal remain parties below)