Justice Department May Be Using Controversial Patriot Act Powers After All, Letter Reveals
In a Related Development, Federal Court Orders FBI To Disclose Patriot Act Records to ACLU
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON - Attorney General Ashcroft's widely publicized announcement last September that the Justice Department had not yet used a controversial provision of the Patriot Act is now under question in two pending lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the group revealed today.
"Attorney General Ashcroft is playing hide-and-seek with the American public about whether and how the government is using a dangerous new surveillance power," said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU.
At issue is Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which vastly expands the power of FBI agents to secretly obtain records and personal belongings of innocent people in the United States, including citizens and permanent residents.
In the ACLU's challenge to Section 215 pending in Detroit, the Justice Department yesterday sent a letter to the court which implies that they are now using the provision.
In a court hearing last November, the government argued that the ACLU's challenge should be dismissed because Section 215 had not yet been used, Beeson explained. But in the May 19 letter to Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court in Detroit, a senior trial counsel in the case said that Ashcroft's announcement only covered the period between October 26, 2001 (when the law was passed) and September 18, 2003 (the date Ashcroft declared that the power had not been used).
Although the government letter noted that it must provide a classified report to Congress next month with the total number of Section 215 orders issued since last September, the government said it would not "undertake an obligation to keep the Court or the plaintiffs informed" of that number. The judge has not yet ruled on the government's pending motion to dismiss the case.
"We can only conclude that the government is now using the Section 215 power and that it is informing the court in an attempt to forestall a ruling based on a faulty premise," Beeson said.
The ACLU's clients in the challenge greeted the news with apprehension. "When this case was filed, we were concerned that our organization's records would be the target of a government investigation in spite of the fact that we have done nothing wrong," said Ismael Ahmed, Executive Director of ACCESS, a Detroit-area social service agency in the Arab community whose clients include victims of torture. "Our concern is even greater if even the court has no right to know if a Section 215 order has been issued."
In a second case, a Freedom of Information Act request for information about the use of Section 215, a federal court in Washington has rejected the government's attempt to delay disclosure of the records, and has ruled that the ACLU is entitled to expedited processing of the request.
Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the ACLU that the information "unquestionably implicates important individual liberties and privacy concerns" given "the ongoing debate regarding the renewal and/or amendment of the Patriot Act."
Ironically, Judge Huvelle said that Ashcroft's announcement last year that the Section 215 power had not yet been used had helped, not harmed, the ACLU's arguments in the FOIA case, because he had "implicitly, if not explicitly" acknowledged the public interest in information relating to the government's use of Section 215.
Judge Huvelle is expected to rule later today on when the government must produce the documents the ACLU requested. The government has asked the court to withhold the documents until a date after the Presidential election and after the crucial debate over the extension of certain "sunset" provisions of the Patriot Act is concluded.
"It appears that the government believes protecting the President from criticism about the Patriot Act in an election year is in the national interest," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU staff attorney in the FOIA case. "We are confident that the court will see through this political gambit and set a reasonable schedule for disclosure that will allow the public to make up its own mind about the Patriot Act in a more timely fashion."
Noting that the court was "constrain[ed]" by precedent, Judge Huvelle upheld her earlier denial of the ACLU's request that the government disclose the specific number of times the Section 215 power had been invoked. The May 19 letter to Judge Hood in Detroit appears to answer this question in part, by implying that the number is no longer "zero," as Ashcroft declared last year, the ACLU said.
The ACLU made the FOIA request jointly with the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. A web feature about the FOIA request, including documents previously obtained, is online at /patriotfoia
A web feature on the ACLU challenge to Section 215 is online at /node/23347
The letter to Judge Denise Page Hood in the Detroit case is online at /node/22920
Judge Huvelle's order in the FOIA case is online at /node/35418
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.