ACLU Asks Appeals Court To Affirm Decision Striking Down Patriot Act ”National Security Letter” Provision
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org; (212) 549-2666
Gag Orders Are Unconstitutional And Allow The FBI To Conceal Abuse, ACLU Says
NEW YORK - In a brief filed under seal on Monday and unsealed yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union urged a federal appellate court to uphold a lower court decision striking down the National Security Letter (NSL) provision of the Patriot Act. The provision gives the FBI the authority to issue letters demanding private information about people within the United States, and to place the recipients of the letters under indefinite gag order. A report released on Thursday by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) revealed widespread, systemic abuse of the NSL power by the FBI.
“The district court was right to find that the FBI can’t be given the unreviewable power to impose gag orders on the recipients of national security letters,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The FBI’s power to silence the recipients of these letters has to be subject to judicial oversight. Without that oversight, the FBI can misuse its power to conceal abuse and silence its critics, which is exactly what it’s been doing.”
Yesterday’s OIG report revealed that the FBI issued tens of thousands of NSLs in 2006. Among other abuses, the FBI misused NSLs to sidestep the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), according to the report. In one instance, the FBI issued NSLs to obtain information after the FISC twice refused its requests on First Amendment grounds.
The OIG also found that the FBI continues to impose gag orders on about 97 percent of NSL recipients and that, in some instances, the FBI failed to sufficiently justify why the gag orders were imposed in the first place.
An earlier OIG report detailing privacy breaches and misuse of NSLs between 2003 and 2005 led the FBI to issue new guidelines for use of the letters in June 2007.
“The Inspector General’s report makes it strikingly clear that the FBI has been given far too much surveillance power,” said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security project. “The government should not need internal guidelines to tell it not to break the law, and even with new guidelines in place we believe serious abuses still occur.”
The brief unsealed yesterday relates to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in April 2004 on behalf of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) that received an NSL. Because the FBI imposed a gag order on the ISP, the lawsuit was filed under seal, and even today the ACLU is prohibited from disclosing its client’s identity. The FBI continues to maintain the gag order even though the underlying investigation is more than four years old and may well have ended, and even though the FBI abandoned its demand for records from the ISP over a year ago.
In the lawsuit, now called Doe v. Mukasey, the ACLU initially challenged both the FBI’s power to demand records without judicial oversight and its power to impose gag orders on NSL recipients. Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the NSL statute in September 2004, ruling that the FBI could not constitutionally demand sensitive records without judicial review and that permanent gag orders violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The government appealed the ruling, but Congress amended the NSL provision before the court issued a decision. The ACLU brought a new challenge to the amended provision, and in September 2007 Judge Marrero again found the statute unconstitutional. The government is again appealing.
“The FBI's practically unfettered power to gag NSL recipients skews public debate about the wisdom of granting this FBI this kind of intrusive surveillance power,” said Goodman. “The statute grants the FBI sweeping censorial authority but fails to provide safeguards that the Constitution requires. The district court was correct to find the statute unconstitutional.”
The FBI has used its gag power to censor court filings in the ACLU’s case and to shield even innocuous information from public view.
“These efforts,” said Arthur Eisenberg, Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, “extend well beyond protecting classified information and reflect an intention to suppress criticism of government overreaching.”
For example, the government once redacted from an ACLU brief the statement that the gag order was “an irresponsible invocation of national security to justify unnecessary secrecy.” In a declaration filed by John Doe, the government redacted the statement that “the public should be able to monitor how the government is using [its Patriot Act] powers so that it can police against possible abuses.” The government even once redacted language taken directly from a Supreme Court opinion, “the danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect ’domestic security.’ Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.”
More examples of information the government has censored in court filings in this case and another ACLU case challenging a gag order are available online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/26454res20060814.html and www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/18491res20040819.html
The ACLU also filed a lawsuit last June to enforce its Freedom of Information Act request to force the Department of Defense and the CIA to turn over documents concerning those agencies’ use of NSLs. That lawsuit is pending. Thus far, the ACLU has obtained hundreds of documents from Department of Defense about its use of NSLs.
Attorneys in Doe v. Mukasey are Jaffer, Goodman and L. Danielle Tully of the ACLU National Security Project and Eisenberg of the NYCLU.
The ACLU’s brief can be found online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/34476lgl20080310.html
More information on Doe v. Mukasey and NSLs is available online at: www.aclu.org/nsl
National Security
Doe v. Holder
National Security
Doe v. Holder
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.