Lynch v. Seal, 165 F. Supp. 3d 352

The FBI issued a National Security Letter (NSL) to Respondent, an electronic communication service provider (ECSP), requesting subscriber/transactional records; Respondent provided the records and complied with the NSL’s nondisclosure requirement.
Respondent notified the FBI it intended to challenge the NSL’s nondisclosure provision; the Government instead initiated judicial review under 18 U.S.C. § 3511(c).
The USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 amended the statutory scheme governing NSLs; the Court applied the post-Act statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 2709 and 3511) and permitted ex parte review of classified materials under § 3511(e).
The Court reviewed classified submissions ex parte and found the requested information relevant to an authorized national-security investigation and that disclosure could harm national security, investigations, diplomatic relations, or personal safety.
Respondent sought access to the classified materials and argued the nondisclosure requirement violated the First Amendment; the Government sought enforcement of the NSL nondisclosure provision.
The Court granted the Government’s petition to enforce the nondisclosure provision but required periodic review of its necessity until the Attorney General issues reviewing procedures under the USA FREEDOM Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the NSL nondisclosure requirement should be enforced	Government: enforcement is justified for national security and investigatory integrity	Respondent: nondisclosure is no longer justified and should be set aside	Enforced: Court found relevance and risk of harm; nondisclosure upheld but subject to modification for review
Whether Respondent may access classified materials used by the Court in ex parte review	Government: ex parte review authorized; disclosure not required	Respondent: requests access to classified materials to challenge nondisclosure	Denied: Court held statute contemplates ex parte review and denied Respondent access
Whether the nondisclosure requirement violates the First Amendment	Respondent: nondisclosure infringes free speech rights	Government: nondisclosure serves compelling national security interest and is narrowly tailored	Rejected: Court assumed First Amendment concerns but held nondisclosure passes strict scrutiny here
Whether indefinite nondisclosure is permissible or requires temporal limits/review	Respondent: indefinite gag is problematic; needs termination mechanism	Government: seeks continued nondisclosure; later AG procedures anticipated	Modified: Court required Government to review nondisclosure every 180 days until AG promulgates procedures under USA FREEDOM Act

Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) (national security is a compelling governmental interest)
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (First Amendment restraints must be no greater than necessary to serve an important governmental interest)