Jewel v. National Security Agency
673 F.3d 902
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jewel and others sue federal agencies and officials alleging warrantless surveillance of communications after 9/11, focusing on AT&T’s San Francisco facility and SG3 rooms.
- Jewel claims a dragnet interception of her and class members’ domestic and international communications in violation of FISA, ECPA, SCA, the APA, and constitutional rights.
- District court dismissed for lack of standing and later on state secrets privilege grounds, and dismissed Shubert’s case with prejudice without leave to amend.
- The district court deemed Jewel’s alleged injury too generalized; the Ninth Circuit reviews standing de novo and accepts the pleadings as true at this stage.
- Court addresses whether Jewel has concrete, particularized injury and whether standing should be tempered by prudential/ political questions in the national security context.
- Plaintiffs’ standing issue is framed against a backdrop of Congress creating some private rights of action under FISA, ECPA, and the SCA, and debates about national security litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Jewel and class have standing to sue government under the statutes/Constitution? | Jewel has concrete, particularized injuries from actual interceptions. | District court found no standing due to lack of link to surveillance and generalized harms. | Yes; Jewel has standing. |
| Are Jewel’s injuries concrete and particularized rather than generalized? | Injuries are specific to Jewel due to AT&T facility involvement and described dragnet. | Injuries alleged are broad, common to the public or speculative. | Injuries are sufficiently concrete and particularized. |
| Is prudential standing or the national-security context a barrier to jurisdiction? | Statutory avenues created by Congress and explicit injuries permit judicial review. | National security context warrants heightened caution or non-judicial remedies. | Prudential concerns do not bar standing; court may proceed; remand on state secrets privilege. |
| Should the district court be permitted to consider state secrets privilege defenses on remand? | Privilege defenses should be evaluated; standing already established. | State secrets privilege may foreclose claims treating the evidence. | Remand for district court to consider state secrets privilege. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (establishes three-part standing test; injury in fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (illustrates concrete, not generalized, injury requirement)
- Akins v. FEC, 524 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1998) (injury need not be unique but must be within zone of interests; concrete injury not precluded by broadly shared harms)
- Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2010) (concrete, particularized injury from frequent exposure to government motto despite broad exposure)
- Amnesty Int’l United States v. Clapper, 638 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2011) (standing to challenge FISA provisions based on concrete injuries from surveillance)