Judge Hears ACLU Challenge to Phone Monitoring by NSA

, New York Law Journal


Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union Friday asked Southern District Judge William Pauley (See Profile) to halt the monitoring of phone calls by the National Security Agency. Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU urged Pauley to reject the government's broad interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act because to let it stand would create a "dramatic expansion of the government's investigative power."

See the ACLU's motion for a preliminary injunction and the government's response.

Co-counsel Alex Abdo said the mere collection of the data itself violated both the First and Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Americans could take little comfort in the government's promise that it would never be abused.

Arguing against an injunction and in favor of the government's motion to dismiss, Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery told the court that the collection of "telephony metadata" is "allowed by statute and it's constitutional."

See the government's motion to dismiss and the ACLU's response.

Delery also said the ACLU lacked standing to challenge the program because it could not show it was being used to create a "profile" of the ACLU as an organization nor could it demonstrate that people who wanted to contact the organization would be scared away knowing its phone records were being collected. Delery called the analysis of metadata a critical tool to "find connections between known and unknown terrorists."

Delery argued that Congress approved of the program when it voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act, but Pauley asked several questions about whether Congress has been fully informed about the nature or extent of the data collection and he cited a brief filed on behalf of Representative James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who "vehemently disputes" that Congress gave a green light to the program.

Following a hearing that lasted more than two hours, Pauley took the matter under advisement. The case is American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 13 cv 03994.

What's being said

  • W. Addo

    It makes common sense to allow government a little leeway when it comes to terror fighting, but this requires strict oversight from Congress. Being falsely accused as a terror suspect, or criminal destroys ones life and family. I have always been against exparte or one-sided evidence to accuse someone of any criminal act. The bar should be higher for electronic evidence. By now we all know ones email or social media accounts can be hacked into by other people. Bad person can use other person's email to send email to anybody, and post messages using other person's social media accounts. Another angle-email you send to someone can be forwarded to anyone and alter the original email language. We should appreciate the work our law enforcements are doing to protect us. Likewise, civil rights of citizens must be respected. Congress and the courts must see to it that both ends are achieved. This is my own humble opinion.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202629385845

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.