Smith v. Obama
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76344
D. Idaho2014Background
- Plaintiff Smith, a Verizon customer, sued to enjoin the NSA from collecting and analyzing her telephone metadata, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation.
- For ~7+ years the NSA has collected US telephone metadata (numbers, call time, duration, trunk identifiers) and stores it for five years under FISC-approved procedures limited to counterterrorism and maintenance.
- NSA queries require an internal finding (by one of 22 designated officials) that a number is associated with terrorism; queries pull two degrees of connection from that number (caller/recipient and their contacts).
- Smith contends this bulk collection infringes any reasonable expectation of privacy in phone metadata; the NSA and FISC orders deny collection of identifiable addresses and cell-site location information.
- The court assumed Smith had standing but found no persuasive evidence the NSA collects cell-site location data for tracking, and therefore evaluated the claim under existing third‑party/metadata precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NSA bulk collection/analysis of telephone metadata violates the Fourth Amendment | Smith: metadata (time, duration, trunk IDs, call graph) reveals a detailed, ongoing mosaic of personal life and is protected | NSA: metadata disclosed to providers is not private under Smith; FISC limits and internal safeguards reduce intrusion | Court held: no Fourth Amendment violation under controlling precedent; dismissed claim |
| Whether trunk identifier/cell‑site data or location tracking is collected (implicating Jones) | Smith: trunk IDs and routing data can reveal location/movements and thus implicate Jones and a reasonable privacy expectation | NSA/FISC: representations and orders deny collection of cell‑site/GPS/location information | Court held: no reliable evidence NSA collects location data here; Jones inapplicable |
| Applicability of Smith v. Maryland and related circuit authority to modern metadata collection | Smith: Smith is outdated; modern phones create a detailed mosaic that Smith did not contemplate | NSA: Smith and Ninth Circuit precedents (Reed, Forrester, Golden Valley) bind the court and control outcome | Court held: Smith and controlling circuit precedent govern; the Court follows those cases |
| Whether to follow D.D.C.'s Klayman (enjoining collection) | Smith: Klayman reasoned Smith is ill‑suited to the digital age and enjoined collection | NSA: Klayman conflicts with Supreme Court and circuit precedent; not binding here | Court held: declines to follow Klayman; bound by Supreme Court/Circuit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in numbers dialed disclosed to phone company)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (long‑term GPS monitoring of movements implicates reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) (no expectation of privacy in numbers plus call time and duration)
- United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2008) (no privacy in email to/from addresses, IP addresses, and total data transmitted)
- United States v. Golden Valley Elec. Ass'n, 689 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (no expectation of privacy in utility/business records held by third parties)
- Klayman v. Obama, 957 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013) (held bulk NSA metadata collection likely violates Fourth Amendment and enjoined program)
- ACLU v. Clapper, 959 F.Supp.2d 724 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (upheld legality of NSA bulk metadata collection under existing precedent)