In Legal First, Groups Urge High Court to Review Secret Court Ruling on Government Spying
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK - In an unprecedented legal move, a coalition of civil liberties and Arab-American groups today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review an extraordinary decision by a secret appeals court that broadly expanded the government's powers to spy on U.S. citizens.
The case offers the first opportunity for the Justices to consider government actions in the wake of September 11 that severely restrict civil liberties in the name of national security.
"On behalf of all Americans, we are urging the Supreme Court to reject the extreme notion that Attorney General Ashcroft can suspend the ordinary requirements of the Fourth Amendment to listen in on phone calls, read e-mails, and conduct secret searches of Americans' homes and offices," said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU filed the appeal together with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS), a Michigan-based organization.
At issue in the case - which has focused a spotlight on the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - is whether the Constitution and the USA PATRIOT Act adopted by Congress permit the government to use looser foreign intelligence standards to conduct surveillance in criminal investigations in the United States.
Today's request also gives the U.S. Supreme Court the opportunity to review for the first time the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), originally enacted in 1978.
The groups said in legal papers that they believe their members and many other Americans are currently subject to illegal surveillance, noting that the FBI has already targeted its members in numerous ways. For example, the FBI recently ordered its field offices to count the number of mosques and Muslims in their areas in order to establish their surveillance priorities.
"We do not enter into this litigation lightly; we firmly believe that these expanded powers erode the functionality and checks and balances of our judicial system," said Ziad J. Asali, M.D., President of ADC.
The FISA court and the Court of Review were created under a federal law intended to authorize government wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations. Under FISA procedures, all hearings and decisions are conducted in secret. The government is normally the only party to FISA proceedings and the only party that can appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a separate motion that accompanied the request for a review of the lower court decision, the groups argued that they should be allowed to appeal the historic decision even though they were not parties in the lower court proceedings.
"These fundamental issues should not be finally adjudicated by courts that sit in secret, do not ordinarily publish their decisions, and allow only the government to appear before them," the groups said in their papers.
The FISA Court of Review's November 2002 ruling - the first in its history - overturned an earlier unanimous decision of the lower FISA court rejecting the Justice Department's bid for broader surveillance powers. In its May 2002 decision, the FISA court documented numerous surveillance abuses, including serious errors in approximately 75 applications for foreign surveillance.
Today's legal challenge comes just days after reports that the Justice Department is seeking yet another massive legislative expansion of its powers. The proposed legislation goes even further than the USA PATRIOT Act in eroding checks and balances on Presidential power and encouraging police spying on political and religious activities.
Attorneys in the case are Beeson, Jameel Jaffer and Steven Shapiro of the ACLU and Joshua L. Dratel, John D. Cline and Tom Goldstein of NACDL, acting on behalf of their organizations and as counsel to ADC and ACCESS.
The case is In Re: Sealed Case Of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Of Review No. 02-001.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
Free Speech
Ahead of House Vote on Bill that Would Stifle Dissent, ACLU Sounds Alarm AgainAhead of House Vote on Bill that Would Stifle Dissent, ACLU Sounds Alarm Again
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives is set to vote Thursday on the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, a bill that would give the incoming Trump administration new power to muzzle, punish, and effectively shut down tax-exempt organizations without transparency or appropriate due process. This misguided piece of legislation would impact a wide range of tax-exempt organizations, including nonprofits, universities, and even news outlets. Last week, Congress narrowly blocked the bill based on due process concerns and significant constituent opposition. In just a few days, over 100,000 people sent messages to their members asking them to oppose H.R. 9495. Last week’s vote was brought up under suspension, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass. Tomorrow’s vote will come under regular order and only requires a simple majority. The American Civil Liberties Union led a coalition of over 180 non-profit organizations — including Planned Parenthood, AFL-CIO, United Auto Workers, and the NAACP — in a letter to Congress outlining why this bill is not only dangerous, but unnecessary. The letter also laid out how future administrations could abuse it to lock in power, silence dissent, and go after disfavored groups and vulnerable communities. “Every time we give the president new powers and more authority to act alone, we create an open invitation for abuse by the executive branch,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior federal policy counsel at ACLU. “While the ACLU would oppose this legislation no matter who the president is, and there is no question it could be weaponized against groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum, the rhetoric we saw on the campaign trail from the president-elect is even more reason for Congress to reject this bill.” H.R. 9495 joins two unrelated measures together: one allowing the Treasury Department to withhold tax-exempt status from any nonprofit it accuses of being a “terrorist-supporting organization” — without being required to disclose the evidence against it — and another, non-controversial measure, which would offer tax relief to Americans imprisoned unjustly abroad. The latter provision already passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill, and as the coalition letter notes, none of the groups oppose these tax-relief provisions. In fact, not a single member of Congress has thus far raised any opposition to these provisions. The fastest way for it to become law is for the House to simply pass the Senate bill. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
Free Speech
ACLU Cheers House Vote Blocking H.R. 9495ACLU Cheers House Vote Blocking H.R. 9495
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives blocked H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, 256-145. Because the House of Representatives was attempting to move the bill on suspension it required a two-thirds majority in order to pass. This legislation would have granted the Secretary of Treasury the unilateral power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of their tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The following is a statement from Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU: “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, and now is not the time to grant the executive branch new powers to investigate and functionally shut down and silence its critics. Tonight enough members of the House voted to block giving the executive branch new broad and easily abused powers. This is only the first such battle we expect to see in the coming years, and we will continue to remain vigilant in working to ensure that the authority of the executive branch is appropriately limited.”