After Rand Paul’s Sort-of Filibuster, What’s Next for Surveillance Reform?
While technically Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) stand against the NSA yesterday wasn't a filibuster, any time a member of Congress talks for over ten hours without a bathroom break, it's close enough in our book.
Paul's move came just as the debate around NSA reform started heating up in the Senate. Though senators were scheduled to leave today, it now looks like they may be in D.C. well into the holiday weekend, deciding whether to extend, reform, or simply put to rest provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire on June 1 (more on that here).
So, what is the effect of Sen. Paul's "filibuster" and what does it mean for the surveillance debate?
Here are the main takeaways.
- Pressure is mounting from all sides on Congress to reform the Patriot Act
According to an ACLU poll released this week, Americans support reforming or sunsetting the Patriot Act by almost a two to one margin.
Two demographic groups that most support reform: millennials and independent men. Considering that, it's not a surprise that Senator Paul's stand did not go unnoticed. Twitter abounded with calls to #StandForRand.
Senator Paul was also joined on the Senate floor by Democrats and Republicans, mirroring the bipartisan coalition that has formed around the issue.
- Unless everyone can agree, the Senate is likely working into the weekend
Under Senate rules, typically the Senate leader (in this case, Sen. Mitch McConnell) files a motion to proceed, which then needs to "ripen" in order to allow a bill to move forward. Unless the speaker can get the consent of all senators to immediately debate the bill, it typically takes 30 hours for a bill to ripen.
One of two bills would likely need to move in the Senate in order to beat the sunset – either the USA Freedom Act, which already passed the House, or a two-month straight reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, which has not yet cleared the House.
By extending debate on the floor, Sen. Paul ensured that the earliest that Sen. McConnell could move to proceed on either was this morning. In other words, absent carefully orchestrated procedural gymnastics (such as attaching the measures to another bill), the Senate will not debate either extending or reforming the Patriot Act until Saturday.
As of this moment, Sen. McConnell has not given a clear indication of whether he intends to bring one or both bills to the floor. If members who have already indicated that they support NSA reform stand strong and oppose any reauthorization, they easily have the 41 votes needed to jam any reauthorization bill, leaving sunset or reform as the only option.
- Gridlock could equal at least temporary sunset
Members of the House are set to leave Washington, D.C., to begin the Memorial Day recess (think nap time and monkey bars) this week. Unless they come back early, the House will not return until June 1.
And, so, a game of chicken begins.
As you might remember, the USA Freedom Act — the modest reform bill passed by the House — extends provisions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire on June 1 with some modifications. House leadership has said that they will not take up a bill that simply seeks a straight extension of the Patriot Act provisions.
To really drive the point home, the House is leaving this afternoon and has said again (and again) that they will not come back early to vote on an extension.
With the House gone, if the Senate passes a new reform bill or a straight reauthorization of the Patriot Act, it would likely not be soon enough to stop the provisions from sunsetting first. That technically happens at midnight on May 31, 2015. Unless the House decides to come back early or essentially has unanimous consent to pass a bill during a pro forma session.
- A sunset could flip the NSA debate on its head.
After a sunset, the equation flips.
With a sunset, Congress' reform bill won't just modify provisions of the Patriot Act. It would resurrect pieces of the Patriot Act (i.e. parts of Section 215) that have died. Section 215 is the provision of the law that has been used illegally to collect call records of everyone in America, thousands of financial records, and other electronic records.
Proactively authorizing that kind of behavior again should and will be a tough pill for many members of Congress to swallow.
And, it will be an even harder pill for the public to swallow.
It will be particularly difficult in light of the Justice Department report released earlier today, which exposed that the FBI is using Section 215 to collect huge volumes of information, including metadata and electronic records, about innocent people — and that despite all of this collection, the FBI is unable to point to any case in which the information it obtained turned out to be crucial to an investigation.
If Section 215 sunsets, pro-reform advocates will have more leverage to push for stronger surveillance reforms than those currently on the table, because the new status quo will tip more in favor of those who oppose mass surveillance under the Patriot Act. However, they will have to strongly push back against fearmongering from anti-reformists and proposals that are weaker than those currently being considered.
Anyone excited yet?
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.