Schuchardt v. President of the United States, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18025

Background

Plaintiff Elliott Schuchardt sued government officials alleging the NSA’s PRISM program (authorized under FISA §702) unlawfully intercepts and stores his electronic communications, seeking injunctive relief for Fourth Amendment violations.
Schuchardt’s second amended complaint relied primarily on media reports and leaked classified slides (from Snowden disclosures) describing PRISM as collecting content directly from servers of major providers (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple) and describing broad collection goals.
The Government moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing Section 702 targets non-U.S. persons abroad and PRISM is targeted (not a domestic dragnet), so Schuchardt did not plausibly allege his communications were seized.
The District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding Schuchardt’s allegations too generalized and dependent on public reports rather than particularized facts showing his communications were targeted or seized.
On appeal, the Third Circuit treated the dismissal as a facial 12(b)(1) attack, accepted the complaint’s plausible factual allegations as true, and held Schuchardt plausibly alleged a particularized injury because PRISM was pleaded as a nationwide dragnet encompassing emails from providers he uses.
The Third Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded, noting the Government may later mount a factual jurisdictional challenge (and may invoke privileges like the state secrets doctrine); it also cautioned district court discretion in ordering any jurisdictional discovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge PRISM under Article III (injury-in-fact)	Schuchardt: PRISM collects “all or substantially all” Americans’ e‑mail (including his), so his private communications were seized and he suffered a concrete, particularized injury.	Government: §702 authorizes targeting of non‑U.S. persons abroad; PRISM is targeted via selectors, not a domestic dragnet, so plaintiff cannot plausibly show his communications were intercepted.	The complaint plausibly alleged a particularized, personal injury because the pleaded facts (leaked slides + use of services provided by named companies) support an inference PRISM captured his communications; dismissal vacated.
Standard of review for jurisdictional attack	Schuchardt: facial review should credit plausible factual allegations (including public reports).	Government: relies on extrinsic factual material (PCLOB report, other sources) to show implausibility.	Court: treated as facial 12(b)(1) — must accept plausible allegations in complaint; extrinsic government materials not considered at this stage.
Use of publicly disclosed/leaked materials to plead facts	Schuchardt: may rely on media reports and leaked documents to allege factual matter making claim plausible.	Government: such materials are imprecise and do not establish indiscriminate collection; they show targeted collection.	Court: reliance on public reports is permissible for pleading plausibility; such sources are part of factual matter to be credited at motion-to-dismiss stage.
Scope of remand and discovery	Schuchardt: requests jurisdictional discovery to prove PRISM’s dragnet nature.	Government: discovery must be limited and may be barred by privileges (state secrets, national security concerns).	Court: remanded; left discovery to district court discretion, warning against fishing expeditions and noting government may assert privileges and state‑secrets doctrine.

Key Cases Cited

Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) (holding plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge §702 based on speculative future injury)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (articulating the three elements of Article III standing)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: courts disregard conclusory allegations; plausible factual allegations accepted)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim, but need not plead detailed facts)
Hassan v. City of New York, 804 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 2015) (surveillance plaintiffs plausibly alleged particularized injury even where program affected many)
ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015) (court found standing at motion to dismiss to challenge related NSA programs)
Jewel v. NSA, 673 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2011) (plaintiffs plausibly alleged standing based on specific insider accounts of interception)
Obama v. Klayman, 800 F.3d 559 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (split panel addressing standing to enjoin NSA programs; differing views on sufficient showing)