280 F. Supp. 3d 39
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (individuals and a law firm; some Verizon subscribers) challenged multiple NSA surveillance programs disclosed by Snowden, seeking injunctive relief, expungement of collected metadata, and multi-billion dollar damages for alleged First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment violations.
- Programs challenged: bulk telephony metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act (May 2006–Nov. 2015), bulk Internet metadata collection under FISA §402 (July 2004–Dec. 2011), and targeted content collection under FISA §702 (PRISM), plus related programs.
- Congress enacted the USA FREEDOM Act (effective Nov. 29, 2015), which prohibits bulk collection under Section 215 and amended FISA to prevent bulk collection under §402/pen-trap; FISC orders terminated/limited prior program access and required destruction of much collected data.
- Procedural history: district court initially enjoined the Section 215 program (Dec. 2013) but the D.C. Circuit vacated for lack of standing; plaintiffs amended complaints to address standing; certain individual-capacity defendants later dismissed; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- The district court treated the motion as a factual Rule 12(b)(1) attack, considered declarations (e.g., NSA), and dismissed the complaints with prejudice for lack of Article III jurisdiction and sovereign immunity for damages claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Section 215 injunctive claims | Section 215 collection harmed them and risk of recurrence; voluntary-cessation exception applies | USA FREEDOM Act bans bulk collection; FISC orders bar querying and limited access has ended | Claims for declaratory/prospective injunctive relief under Section 215 are moot; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Expungement of Section 215–collected metadata | Court should order expungement of plaintiffs’ metadata | Any remaining data is preserved only due to plaintiffs’ and other litigants’ preservation requests and FISC orders; injury is not traceable to defendant action alone | Plaintiffs lack standing to seek expungement because retention is traceable to plaintiffs/third-party preservation requests; claim dismissed |
| Section 402 (bulk Internet metadata) claims | NSA formerly collected Internet metadata; plaintiffs seek injunction/expungement | Program ended in 2011 and data destroyed; USA FREEDOM Act bars bulk collection under §402 | Claims are moot/non-justiciable because collection ended years before suit and data were destroyed; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| PRISM (FISA §702) standing | Plaintiffs allege international communications and other facts making targeting plausible | Plaintiffs’ showing is speculative; Clapper controls: too many uncertainties in causal chain; identities of targets are classified | Plaintiffs fail to allege concrete or fairly traceable injury under Clapper; PRISM claims dismissed for lack of standing |
| Damages (Bivens) and suit against government | Plaintiffs seek compensatory/punitive damages for constitutional violations | Sovereign immunity bars damages suits against the United States absent an unequivocal waiver; Bivens applies only against individual officers | Damages claims against the Government dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (sovereign immunity); individual-capacity defendants already dismissed, so Bivens relief unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (Article III standing requires a concrete and imminent injury; speculative chains of possibility are insufficient)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and traceability requirement)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (implied damages remedy against federal officers in certain constitutional violation contexts)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity shields the federal government and its agencies absent an unequivocal waiver)
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (heightened standing scrutiny when judicial review would require declaring actions of coordinate branches unconstitutional)
- Am. Bar Ass’n v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 636 F.3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (intervening legislation can moot pending challenges to an agency program)
- Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (mootness principles and that courts need a live controversy to afford relief)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (expansion of Bivens is disfavored and context-sensitive)