Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion

7/22/2019 Klayman v. Obama NSA Metadata Opinion

1/68

Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 48 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 68

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

-

KLAYMN et al.,

v.

OBAMA et al.,

KLAYMAN e al.,

v.

OBAMA et al,

Plainis,

Defendants.

Plaintiff,

Defendans.

)))))))))

))))))))

Civil Acion No. -085 (RJL)

FILED

DEC 1 6 2013

lek, U.S Distc & BnpyCour h Dc f mba

ORANDUM OPINIONDeebe /62013 D . 13 o 13-0851), 10 o 130881)]

On June 6 013 panffs boug e s ofo eae asus aengng eonsuonay an sauoy auozaon of ean negene-gaeng aes by

e ne Saes goveen eang o e oesae oeon of e one eo

eaaa of a S zens Tese eae ases ae o of sevea asus asng

laffs secod s was led less ha a wee laer o Je 1 2 203 ad challeged hecosoaly d saory ahorzao of he govees colleco of oh hoe adee meadaa records

2 he comla ALUv. lapper, Cv o 13-3994 whch was led he Ued SaesDsrc Cor for he Sohe Dsrc of ew York o Je 1 1 203 alleges clams smlar o

1


2/68


fo pub eveaons ove e pas sx ons a e feea goveen oug e

Naona Seuiy Ageny (NSA), an wi e paiipaion of ean

eeounaons an inee opanes, as onue suvei ane an ne gene-

gaeing pogas a oe ean aa abou e eepone an inee aivy of

Aean zens win e Uned Saes. Painffsve nivuas n oa beween

No. 13-81 ("Klayman f') an No. 1 3 88 1 ("Klayman )bng ese sus as US.

zens wo ae subsibes o uses ofean eeounaons an inee s.

See Seon A. op. (Klayman ! [D.# 3 7] 1 ; A. op. (Klayman ) [D.#

3] 1.3 Tey bng sui agains bo feea goveen efenans (sevea feea

agenes an nivua exeuive ofias) an pvae efenans (eeounaions

an inee s an ei exeuve ofes) aegng sauoy an onsuona

vioaons. See generally Seon Am. op. (Klayman ; A. op (Klayman )

efoe e ou ae panffs wo Moons fo Penay Injunion [D. # 1 3

(Klayman,# 1 (Klayman )] one n ea ase As e ef panffs see an injunion

a, ung e peneny of s su () bas [ ]efenans fo oeing [p ] anffs

hose in he insan wo cases See also In re Electronic Privacy Information Center, No 13 -58(S C) (Peiion for a Wri of Mandamus and Prohibiion, or a Wri of Ceriorari led uly 8,201 3 ; eiion denied Nov 1 8, 201 3); mit v Obama, Civ No 2: 1 30025 (D Idaho)(comlain led une 1 2, 20 1 3); First Unitarian Curc ofLos Angeles v. NSA, Civ No 13-328 (ND Cal) (comlain led uly 1 6, 201 3)

3 Plainiffs comlains reec heir inenion o bring boh suis as class acions on behalf ofhemselves and "all oher similarly siuaed consumers, users, and U S ciizens who arecusomers and users of, Second Am Com l ("Klayman ') 1 , or "who are subscribers, users,cusomers, and oherwise avail hemselves o, Am Coml ("Klayman I' 1 , heelecommunicaions and inee comanies named in he comlains Plainiffs have no ye,however, moved o cerify a class in eiher case and in fac have moved for exensions of ime ole a moion for class cericaion four imes in each case See Moion for Exension of Time oCerify Class Acion (Klayman ) D. ## , 14, 2, 40]; (Klayman I) D. ## 6 1 1 , 23, 33 ]

2


3/68


call records under the mass call survellance program; ( requres defendants to desroy

all of p]lantffs ' call records already col lected under the program and ( prohbts

d]efendans from queryng metadata obtaned through the program usng an phone

number or other denter assocated wth p] lantffs . . . and such other relef as may be

found just and proper. Ps . ' Mot. for Prelm. nj . (Klayman Dk.# 13 ] ; Ps .' Mot. for

Prelm Inj. (Klayman I Dkt.# 10] see also Ps' Mem. P. & A n Supp ofMot for

Prelm Inj . (Klayman ("Pls' Mem. Dkt.# 1 31 ] at 303 1 . In l ght of how

plantffs have craed ther requested relef the Court consrues the moons as

requestng a prel mnary njuncton 1 ) only as aganst the federal govemen

defendants and (2) only wh regard o the govemen's bulk collecon and querng of

phone record metadata Further between the two cases plantffs have alleged wth

sufcent patcularty that only two of the ve named plantffs Larry Klayman and

Carles Strange are telephone serce subscrbers . Accordngly for purposes of

4 Uness otherwse niate a tatons to Ps Mem an other oket tems herenaersha refer to the ngs mae in Klayman I

n Klayman I paniffs Lay Kayman an hares Strange have sumtte afavs statngthey are susrers of Verion Wreess for euar phone servie see Aff of Larry Kayman(ayman Aff) Dkt # 1 3-2 at 3 Supp Aff of Larry Kayman (ayman Supp Aff)Dkt # 3-2 at 3 ; Aff of hares Strange (Strange Aff) [Dkt # 3- 3 at 2 ut neither theompaint nor the motion afrmatvey aeges that Mary Ann Strange is a susrer of VerionWreess or any other phone serve see Seon Am om p 1 0 (esrng pantff Mary

Ann Strange) An n Klayman II where the ompaint an moton rase ams regarng thegoveents oeton an anayss of oth phone an nteet reors the pantffs netherspeiay aege nor sumt any afavts statng that any of them nvuay s a susrerof ether of the two name teephone ompany efenants AT&T an Sprntfor teleponeservices See Aff of Larry ayman (Klayman I Dkt # 1 02 at 3 (I am aso a user ofnteet serves y AT&T "); Supp Aff o f Larry Kayman (Klayman I [Dkt# 262at 3 (same); Aff of hares Strange (Klayman I Dkt # 0-3 at 3 (I am aso a user ofnteet servies y AT&T ); Am omp 14 (Paintff Garrison s a onsumeran user of Faeook Googe YouTue an Miroso prouts) omare Am om p

3


4/68


resolvng these two motons the Courts dscusson of relevant facts statutory

background and legal ssues wll be crcumscrbed to those defendans (herenaer "the

Govement those two plantffs herenaer "plantffs and those clams.

(Klayman I 1 3 (Plainti Ferrari is a susrier onsumer an user oSprint,Google/Gmail Yahoo an Appe. As a prominent private investigator Feari regularlyommuniates oth telephonially an eletronialy (emphasis ae)) wit Pls' Mem(Klayman I [Dkt. # 1 0 1 ] at 1 8 (Deenants have inisputaly also provie the SA withintrusive an warrantless aess to the internet records o Plaintis Mihae Ferrari an MatthewGarrison (emphasis ae))

6 Klayman Iones only the oletion an analysis o phone reor ata an only withrespet to private eenant Verion ommuniations Klayman II, y ontrast appears toone the olletion an anaysis o oth phone an inteet reor ata an inlues othphone ompanies an inteet ompanies as private eenants In the atter ase Plaintis'Motion or Preliminary Injuntion Dkt # 1 0] an their Memoranum o Points an Authoritiesin Support [Dkt # 1 0 1 ] suer rom some onusion as a resut o its larger sope On the aeo the Motion itsel Dkt. # 1 0] an their Propose Orer Dkt. # 1 04] plaintis request reiethat is iential to that requeste in the motion in Klayman !i. e relie oneing only theoletion an querying o phone reor ata Throughout the memoranum in suppor Dkt #1 0 1 ] however paintis interminge laims regaring the sureil ane o phone an inteetata an then in onusion request reie argualy oneing only inteet ata See Ps. 'Mem P & A Supp Mot Prelim Inj (Klayman I [Dkt # 101] at 4 32 (requesting aninjuntion that in par ars] Deenants rom olleting reors pertaining to Plaintis' onlineommuniations ad inteet ativities)

To the extent plaintis are in at requesting preliminary injuntive relie regaring anyallege inteet ata surveillane ativity the ourt nee not aress those laims or tworeasons First the Goveent has represente that any uk olletion o inteet metadatapursuan to Secion 25 50 S 86 was discontnued in 20 ee Gov Defs O 'n toPs ' Mot or Prelim Inj (Govt ' s Opp'n) Dkt # 25 ] at 1 5 1 6 4445 ; Ex. J to Del o JamesJ Gilli gan (Giligan Del.) Dkt. # 25 1 1 ] (Letter rom James R apper to the Sen RonWyen (July 25 20 1 3)) an thereore there is no possie ongoing harm that ou e remeiey injuntive reie Seon to the extent paintis hallenge the Govement' s targeteoletion o inteet ata content pursuant to Setion 702 (50 US. 1 88 1 a) uner the so

ale PRISM program whih targes nonS persons loate outsie the US plaintishave not alege suient ats to show that the SA has targete any o their ommuniationsSee Govt ' s Opp'n at 2 1 22 44 Aoringly plaintis ak staning as squarey itate y theSpreme ourt's reent eision in lapper v Amnes International USA, 13 3 S t 1 1 38(20 1 3) whih ones the same statutory provision I n lapper, the ourt hel thatresponents whose work purporey invove engaging in phone an internet ontat withpersons loate aroa lake staning to hallenge Setion 702 eause i was speulativewhether the goveent woul seek to target target an atualy aquire their ommuniations.See lapper, 1 33 S t at 1 1 4850 ([R]esponents' speulative hain o possiilities oes not

4


5/68


For the reasons dscussed beow the Court rst nds that t lacks jursdcton to

hear plantffs' Admnstratve Procedure Act ("APA clam that the Govement has

eceeded ts statutory authorty under the Foregn Intel lgence Survellance Act

("FISA . Net the Court nds that t does however have the authorty to evaluate

plantffs consttutonal challenges to the NSAs conduct notwthstandng the fact that t

was done pursuant to orders ssued by the Foregn Intel lgence Surve llance Court

("FI SC And aer careful consderaton of the partes pleadngs and supplemental

pleadngs the representatons made on the record at the November 1 8 20 1 3 hearng

regardng these two motons and the applcable law the Court concludes that plantffs

have standng to challenge the constutonalty of the Govements bulk col lecton and

queryng of phone record metadata that they have demonstrated a substantal lkelhood

of success on the merts of ther Fourh Amendment clam and that they wl l suffer

rreparable harm absent prelmnary njunctve relef.7 Accordngly the Cour wll

GRANT n part the Moton for Prelmnary Injuncton n aan I (wth respect to

sas a nuy as on ona uur suvan s any n o s aryraal o 1 88 1 a) So oo for planffs hr (In fa planffs hr hav no vn allgha hy ommuna wh anyon ous h Un Sas a all so r lams unr Son702 ar vn ss oora han hos of h painffs n apper

7 Baus I ulmaly n a planffs hav ma a sufn showng o r njunvrf on hr Four Amnn lam I o no ra hr or onsuonal lams unr hFrs an Fh Amnmns See Seven-Sk v Hoder 66 1 F 3 1 46 (D r 20 1 1 ) (nongh rok prnpl ofjual rsran a ours avo prmaurly or unnssarlyng onsuonal qusons) abrogated by Nat ' Fed n of Indep. Bus v. Sebeius 132 S 2566 (2012) see aso Wash State Grange v. Wash. State Repubican Par 552 US 442450 (2008) (nong h funamnal prnpl of jual rsran ha ours shoul nhranpa a quson of onsuonal law n avan of h nssy of ng norformula a rul of onsuonal law roar han s rqur y h prs fas o whh so appl (aons an nal quoaon arks o))


6/68


Larry Kayman and Chares Strange ony) and DENY the otion for Preiminary

nunction in Klayman I. However in view of the signicant nationa security interests

at stake in this case and the novety of the constitutiona i ssues wi STAY my order

pending appea

BACKGROUND

On June 20 13 the ritish newspaper The Guardian reported the rst of severa

"eaks of cassied materia from Edward Snowden a former NSA contract empoyee

which have reveaedand continue to reveamutipe U S govement inteigence

coection and surveiance programs See Genn Greenwad NSA collecing phone

records ofmillions of Verizon cusomers daily, GUARDIAN (London) June 2013 That

initia media report discosed a FS C order dated Apri 2 20 1 3 compeing Verizon

usiness Network Serices to produce to the NSA on "an ongoing daiy basis a ca

detai records or teephony metadaa' created by Verizon for communications (i)

between the United States and abroad; or (ii) whoy within the United States incuding

oca teephone ca s Secondary Order In re Applicaion of he [FBI] for an Order

Requirng e roducon o angile ngs rom erzon usness eork Servces

Inc. on Beha ofMCI Communicaon Services Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services, No

1 3 -80 at 2 (FSC Apr 2 20 1 3) (attached as Ex F to Giigan Dec ) [Dkt# 27]

("Apr 2 20 1 3 Secondary Order) According to the news artice this order "show[ed]

that under the Obama administraion the communication records o mi ions of US

ala a http://theguaranom/worl/20 3/jun/06/nsa-phonereors-veron-ourorer

6


7/68


citizens are being coected indiscriminatey and in bukregardess of whether they are

suspected of any wrongdoing Greenwad, supra n response to this discosure, the

Govement conrmed the authenticity of the Apri 2 , 20 1 3 FSC Order, and, in this

itigation and in certain pubic statements, acknowedged the existence of a "program

under which "the F obtains orders from the FSC pursuant to Section 2 1 [of the USA

PATOT Act] directing certain teecommunications service providers to produce to the

NSA on a daiy basis eectronic copies of ca detai records ' Go 's Oppn at 8

Foowon media reports reveaed other Government surveiance programs, incuding the

Govements coection of inteet data pursuant to a program caed "PS See

Genn Greenwad & Ewen acAski, NSA Prism program aps in o user daa of Appe

ooge and ohers GUAAN (London), June 6 2013

9 Athough aspets o the program reman asse, nung whh other teeommunatons

serve provers eses Veron Busness etwork Serves are nvove the Goveent haseasse an mae avaae to the pu ertan ats aout the program See Oe o theDr oat Integene, DNI Statement on Recent Unauthorized Disclosure of ClassedInformation (June 6, 203), available at http://ngov/nexphp/newsroom/pressreeases/9-press-reeases-203/868n -satementon-reent-unauthore-sosures-oasse-normaon e o he Dr oa neene, DN Declasses ntelligenceCommuni Documents Regarding Collection Under Section 702 of the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Act (FISA) (Aug 2 203), available athtp// ngov/nexphp/newsroom/pressreeases/9press-reeases-203/95-neassesnegene-ommunty-oumentsregarng-oeon-uner-seton702-otheoren-ntegenesurveane-atsa Oe o the Dr oat Inteene DNI Clapper

Declasses Intelligence Communi Documents Regarding Collection Under Section 501 oftheForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA (Sept 0, 203), available athttp://n gov /nexphp/newsroom/press-reeases/9-press-re eases-20 3/927 -raoument; Amnstraton Whte Paper: Buk Coeton o Teephony Metaata uner Seton25 o the SA PATRIOT At (Aug 9, 203) available athtp: //appswashngonposom/g/page/pos/oamaamnstraton-whte-paperon-nsasurveane-oversght/3 88/

10 Available at http://theguaran.om/wor/203/jun/06/us-teh-gants-nsa-ata

7


8/68


Soon aer the rst pubc reveatons n the news meda pantffs ed ther

compants n these two cases on June 6, 20 3 (Kayman and June 2 20 3 (Kayman

I, allegng that the Govement wth the partcpaton of prvate companes s

conductng "a secret and legal govement scheme to ntercept and analyze vast

quanttes of domestc telephonc communcatons Second Am Compl 2 (Kayman

, and of communcatons from the nteet and electronc servce provders Am

Comp 2 (Kayman I Plantffs n Kayman /attorney Larry Kayman founder of

Freedom Watch a publc nterest organzaton and Chares Strange the father of

Mchael Strange a cryptologst technc an for the NSA and support personnel for Navy

SEAL Team V who was kled n Afghanstan when hs hecopter was shot down n

20 assert that they are subscrbers of Verzon Wreess and brng sut aganst the

NSA the Department of Justce ("DOJ) and severa executve ofcas (Presdent

Barack H Obama Attoey Genera Erc H Hoder Jr General Keth B Alexander

Drector of the NSA and US Dstrct Judge Roger Vnson) as wel as Verzon

Communcatons and ts chef executve ofcer Second Am Comp 9 9 ; Kayman

Aff 3; Strange Aff 2 And plantffs n Kayman Mr Klayman and Mr Strange

agan along wth two prvate nvestgators Mchael Ferrar and Matthew Garrson

brng sut aganst the same Govement defendants as we as Facebook Yahoo

Google Mcroso YouTube AOL Pal Tak Skype Sprnt AT&T and Apple assertng

that plantffs are "subscrbers users customers and otherwse aval themselves to these

named nteet andor teephone servce provder companes Am Comp 4 ;

8


9/68


Kayman Aff 3 ; Kayman Supp Aff 3 ; Strange Aff 3 Speccay pantffs

aege that the Government has voated ther ndvdua rghts under the Frst Fourth

and Fh Amendments of the Consttuton and has voated the Admnstratve Procedure

Act ("AP A) by exceedng ts statutory authorty under FSA Second Am C omp

- 8 4999

I. Statutory Background

A. FISA and Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (50 U.S.C. 1861)

n 978 Congress enacted the Foregn ntegence Surveance Act 50 U S C

80 e seq ("FSA) "to authorze and reguate certan govementa eectronc

surve ance of communcatons for foregn nte gence puoses Capper v. Amnes

In ' USA, 3 3 S Ct 3 8 43 (20 3) Aganst the backdrop of ndngs by the Senate

Seect Commttee to Study Government Operatons wth Respect to nte gence

Actvtes (the Church Commttee) that the executve branch had for decades engaged

n warrantess domestc ntegencegatherng actvtes that had egay nfrnged the

Fourth Amendment rghts of Amercan ctzens Congress passed FSA n arge measure

as a response to the reveatons that warrantess eectronc sureance n the name o

natona securty has been serousy abused S Rep No 95-604 at 7 n the vew of the

Senate Judcary Commttee the ac went "a ong way n strkng a far and just baance

between protecton of natona securty and protecton of persona bertes ! at 7.

See supra, notes 5, 6. Paintiffs aso allege certain statutory ioations by the priate company defendants SecondAm Compl 8-95 , which are not a issue for purposes of the Preliminary Injunction Motionsas wel as common law priacy tort caims, Second Am Comp 70-80

9


10/68


FISA created a procedure for the Govement to obtan ex parte judcal orders

authorzng domestc electronc survellance upon a showng that iner aia, the target of

the surve llance was a foregn power or an agent of a foregn power 50 U. S. C

1 804(a(3 1 805(a(2 In enactng FISA Congress also created two new Artcle III

courtsthe Foregn Intellgence Survellance Court ("FISC composed of eleven US.

dstrct judges "whch shall have jursdcton to hear applcatons for and grant orders

approvng such survellance 1 803 (a( and the FISC Court of Revew composed of

thee U S dstrct or court of appeals judges "whch shall have jursdcton to revew the

denal of any applcaton made under [FISA 1 803 (b

In addton to authorzng wetaps 1 80 1 1 8 12 FISA was subsequently

amended to add provsons enablng the Government to obtan ex parte orders authorzng

physcal searches 1 82 1 1 829 as well as pen regsters and trapandtrace devces

184 1 1846 See Intell gence Authorzaton Act for Fscal Year 1 995 Pub L No 1 03

359 807(a(3 108 Stat 3423; Inellgence Authorzaton Act for Fscal Year 1999

13 The eleven US dstrct judges are apponted by the Chef Justce of the Unted States to serveon the FISC for a term of seven years each 50 US C 1 803(a)( ), (d) They are drawn from atleast seven of the twelve judcal crcuts n the Unted States, and at least thee of the judgesmust resde wthn twenty mles of the Dstrct of Columba 1 803(a)( ) For these elevendstrct judges who comprse the FISC at any one tme, ther servce on the FISC s in additionto not n leu of, ther normal judcal dutes n the dstrcts n whch they have been appontedSee Theodore W Ruger, ChiefJustice Rehquist 's Appointments to the FISA Court: An EmpiricalPerspective, 01 N U L Rv. 239, 244 (2007) (Servce on the FISA Court s a part

tme poston The judges rotate through the court perodcally and mantan regular dstrct courtcaseloads n ther home courts ") Accordngly, servce on the FISC s , at best, a part-tmeassgent that occupes a relatvely small part of each judge 's annual judcal dutes Further,as a result of the requrement that at least three judges resde wthn twenty mles of the naton'scaptal, a dsproportonate number ofthe FISC judges are drawn from the d strct courts of theDstrct of Columba and the Easte Dstrct of Vrgna, see id. at 258 (Appendx) (lstng ChefJustce Rehnqust s twenty-ve appontments to the FISC, sx of whch came from the D D C and ED Va)

1 0


11/68


Pub L No 05 -272 60 (2) 2 Stat 2396 (" 999 Act) In 998 Congress added a

"busness records provson to FISA See 999 Act 602 Under that provson the

FBI was permtted to apply for an ex parte order authorzng speced enttes such as

common carrers to release to the FBI copes of busness records upon a showng n the

FBI 's appl caton that "there are specc and artculable facts gvng reason to beleve

that the person to whom the records pertan s a foregn power or an agent of a foregn

power 50 USC 862(b)(2)(B) (2000)

Followng the September 200 terrorst attacks Congress passed the USA

PATRIOT Act, whch made changes to FISA and several other laws Pub L No 07

56 5 Stat 272 (200 ) Secton 2 5 of the PATRIOT Act replaced FISA' s busness

records provson wth a more expansve "tangble thngs provs on Coded at 50

USC 86 t authorzes the FB to apply "for an order requrng the producton of

any tangble thngs (ncludng books records papers documents and other tems) for an

nvestgaton to obtan foregn ntelgence nformaton not conceng a Unted States

person or to protect aganst nteatonal terrorsm or clandestne ntell gence actvtes '

86 (a)( ) Whe ths provson orgnay reqred that the FI s applcaton shal

spec that the records conceed are sought for such an nvestgaton 86 (b )(2)

(Supp I 200) Congress amended the statute n 2006 to provde that the FBI's

appl caton must nclude "a statement of facts showng that there are reasonable grounds

to beleve that the tangble thngs sought are relevant to an authorzed nvestgaton to

obtan foregn ntellgence nformaton not conceng a Unted States person or to

protect aganst nternatonal terrorsm or clandestne ntellgence actvtes


12/68


1861(b)(2)(A); see USA PATRIOT Improement and Reauthorzaton Act of2005 Pub

L No 109177 106(b) 120 Stat 192 ("USA PATRIOT Improement and

Reauthorzaton Act)

Secton 1861 aso mposes other requrements on the FBI when seekng to use ths

authorty For exampe the nestgaton pursuant to whch the request s made must be

authorzed and conducted under gudenes appro ed by the Attorney Genera under

Execute Order No 1 23 33 (or a successor thereto) 50 U S C 1 86 1 (a)(2)(A)

(b)(2)(A) And the FBI 's appcaton must "enumerate mnmzaton procedures

adopted by the Attoey Genera that are appcabe to the retenton and dssemnaton

by the FBI of any tangbe thngs to be made aaabe to the FBI based on the order

requested 1 86 1 (b)(2)(B) The statute denes "mnmzaton procedures as n

reeant par "specc procedures that are reasonaby desgned n ght of the puose

and technque of an order for the producton of tangbe thngs to mnmze the retenton

and prohbt the dssemnaton of nonpubcy aaabe nformaton conceng

unconsentng US persons consstent wth the need of the US to obtan produce and

dssemnate foregn ntegence nformaton 1 86 1 (g)(2) I f the FISC judge nds that

the FBI 's app caton meets these requrements he "sha enter an ex parte order as

requested or as moded approng the reease of tangbe thngs (herenaer

"producton order) 1 8 6 1 ( c )( 1 ); see aso 1 8 6 1( ( l )(A) ("the term producton order'

means an order to produce any tangbe thng under ths secton)

Under Secton 1861's "use proson nformaton that the FBI acqures through

such a producton order "conceng any U S person may be used and dscosed by

1 2


13/68


Fedeal ofces and epoyees without the consent of the US ] peson only in

accodance with the iniization pocedues adopted by the ttoey Geneal and

appoved by the FISC 1 86 1 (h Meanwhile , ecipients of Section 1 86 1 poducion

odes ae obligated not to disclose the existence of the odes, with lited exceptions

1861(d(l

B. Jdicial Review by the FISC

While the ecipient of a poduction ode ust keep it secet, Section 1 86 1 does

povide the ecipientut only the ecipienta ight ofjudicia eview ofthe ode

befoe the FISC pusuant to specic pocedues io to 2006, ecipients of Section

1 86 1 poducion odes had no expess ight to judicia eview of those odes, but

Congess added such a povision when it eauthoized he TRIOT ct that yea See

US TRIOT Ipoveent and Reauthoizaion ct 1 06( 1 D KRI & J. WILSON,

ATIOAL ECURITY VESTIGATIONS & PROSECUTOS 1 7 (2d ed 20 1 2 ("Kis &

Wilson ("io to the Reauthoization ct in 2006, FIS did not allow fo two-paty

litigation befoe the FISC

Unde Section 1861, a] peson eceiving a poduction ode ay chaenge the

legal ity of tha ode by ling a petition with the peition eview pool of FISC judges]

50 US C 186 1 ((2((i; see 1803(e ( 1 ) . The FISC eview pool judge

consideing the petition ay gant the petition "only if the judge nds that [the] ode

4 The three uges who rese whn twenty mes o he Dsr of Couma omprse thepeton revew pool (unless al hree are unavaale n whh ase other FSC juges may eesgnate) 1 803 (e)( ) n aon to revewng peons to revew Seon 1 8 prouonorers pursuant o 1 8 1 ( he revew pool also has urson to revew petons epursuan o 1 88 a(h)(4) !d.

1 3


14/68


does not eet the equieents of Section 1 86 1 ] o is othewise unawfu .

1 86 1 ((2(B Once the FISC eview poo judge ues on the petition, eithe the

Goveent o the ecipient of the poduction ode ay seek an en ban heaing befoe

the fu FISC, 1 803 (a(2(, o ay appea the decision by ing a petition fo eview

with the FISC Cout of Review, 1 86 1 ((3 Finay, ae the FISC Cou of Review

endes a witten decision, eithe the Govenent o the ecipient of the poduction ode

ay then appea this decision to the Supee Cou on petition fo wit of ceioai .

1 86 1 ((3, 1 803 (b. poduction ode "not expicity odied o set aside consistent

with Section 1 86 1 (] sha eain in fu effect 1 86 1 ((2(D.

Consistent with othe condentiaity povisions of FIS, Section 1 86 1 povides

that "a] petitions unde this subsection sha be ed unde sea, 1 86 1 (( 5 and the

"ecod of poceedings . . sha be aintained unde secuity easues estabished by

the Chief Justice of the United States, in consutation with the ttoey Genea and the

Diecto ofNationa Inteigence, 1 86 1 ((4 See 1803(c.

II. Colletion of Bulk Telephony Metadata Pursuant to Setion 1861

To say the east paintiffs and the Goveent have poayed the scope of the

Goveents sueiance activities vey diffeenty Fo puposes of esoving these

peiinay injunction otions howeve, as wi be ade cea in the discussion beow, it

5 n addon o an ha h NSA has "drc accss o Vrzon s daabass Scond AmCom p 7 and s cocn ocaon nformaon as par of "ca da rcords, Ps. Mm. a10 Mr Kayman and Mr. Sran aso sus ha hy ar "prm ars of h Govnd o hr pubc advocacy and cam ha h Govn s bhnd ad nxpcab xmssas bn sn from and rcvd on hr phons Ps Mm. a 1 3- 1 Kayman Af 1 1 Sran Aff. 1 2- 1 7

14


15/68


w sufce to accept the Goveents descrpton of the phone etadata coecton and

queryng progra C Cbe v rtn 3 F 3 d 25, 26 (D C Cr 2004 (evdentary

hearng on prenary njuncton s necessary ony f the court ust ake credbty

deternatons to resove key factua dsputes n favor of the mving par)

In broad overew, the Goveent has deveoped a "counterterrors progra

under Secton 1861 n whch t coect, copes, retans, and anayzes certan teephone

records, whch t characterzes as "busness records created by certan

teecouncatons copanes (the "Buk Teephony Metadata rogra The records

coected under ths progra consst of"etadata, such as nforaton about what

phone nubers were used to ake and receve cas, when the cas took pace, and how

ong the ca s asted Dec of ctng ssstant Drector Robert J Hoey, Federa Bureau

of Investgaton ("Hoey Dec [Dkt # 25-5 at 5 ; Dec of Teresa H Shea, Sgnas

Integence Drector, Natona Securty gency ("Shea Dec [Dkt# 25-4], at 7;

rary Order, In re Appicatin fthe [FBI} fr an Order Requiring the Prductin f

Tangibe Things Frm [Redacted} No BR 13 - 1 58 at 3 n (FISC Oct 1 1 , 20 1 3

(atached as x B o Ggan Dec [Dkt 25 3] (Oct , 203 rary Order

ccordng to the representatons ade by the Goveent, the etadata records

coected under the progra do nt ncude any nforaton about the content of those

6 Oct , 20 Prmary Ordr at 3 n. (For purposs of ths Ordr tphony mtadatancuds comprhnsv communcatons routn nformaton ncudn bt not mtd tossson dntfyn nformaton (. ornatn and trmnatn tphon numbrntatona Mob Subscrbr dntty ( MS) numbr ntatona Mob staton Equpmntdntty (ME) numbr tc) trnk dntr tphon can card numbrs and tm andduraton of ca)

5


16/68


cas, o the naes, addesses, o nancia infoation of any paty to the cas Ho ey

Dec , Shea Dec 1 Oct 1 1 20 1 3 Piay Ode at 3 n l 17 Though tageted

coputeized seaches of those etadata ecods, the NSA ties to disce connections

between teoist oganizations and peviousy unknown teoist opeatives ocated in the

United States Hoey Dec 5 Shea Dec 8- 1 0, 44

The Goveent has conducted the Buk Teephony Metadata Poga fo oe

than seven yeas Beginning in May 2006 and continuing though the pesent, the FBI

has obtained poduction odes fo the FISC unde Section 1 86 1 diecting cetain

teecounications copanies to poduce, on an ongoing daiy basis, these teephony

etadata ecods, Ho ey Dec 6; Shea Dec 1 3 , which the copanies ceate and

aintain as pat of thei business of poviding teecounications sevices to custoes,

Hoey Dec 1 0; Shea Dec 1 8 The NSA then conso idates the etadata ecods

povided by diffeent teecouniations copanies into one database, Shea Dec 23,

and unde the FISC's odes, the NSA ay etain the ecods fo up to ve yeas, i

7 Panffs have aeed ha the Goveen has aso coected ocaton nformao for cephones. Second Am omp 8; Ps ' em at - Whe more recen FS opnonsexpressy sae ha ce -se ocaon nformaon s no covered by Secton 1 86 1 productonorders s g Oc 1 1 1 3 Prmary Order a 3 n he Goveent has not afrmatveyrepresented o hs ourt that the NSA has not at any pont n the hstory of the Buk Teephonyeadaa Proram coected ocaon nformaton (n one echnca format or anoher) abou cephones S .g Govt.'s Oppn a 9 (denn eephony metadata and non wha s not

ncuded) Order In r Application ofth [FBI] for an Ordr Rquiring th Production ofTangibl Things from Rdactd] No BR 6-5 a 2 (FS ay 24 6) availabl athtp://w.dn .ov/ndex.php/newsroom/press-reeases/1 9 1 -pressreeases 1 3/927dradocumen (denn teephony meadaa and non wha s not ncuded, but not expressy statnha he order does not authorze he producon of cese ocaon nformaton).

8 The mos recent FS order auhorzn he Buk Teephony eadata Proram that heGoveent has dscosed (n redaced form drected o an uknown recpen) expres onJanuary 3 214 S Oct 1 1 21 3 Prmary Order at 17

1 6


17/68


30 see Oct , 203 iay Ode at 4 ccoding to Goveent ofcias, this

aggegation of ecods into a singe database ceates "an histoica epositoy that peits

etospective anaysis , Govt s Opp n at 2, enabing NS anaysts to daw connections,

acoss teecounications seice povides, between nubes easonaby suspected to

be associated with teoist activity and with othe, unknown nubes Hoey Dec 5 ,

8 Shea Dec 46, 60

The FISC odes govening the Buk Teephony Metadata oga specicay

provide that the etadata ecods ay be accessed ony fo counteteois puposes

(and technica database aintenance Hoey Dec 8 Shea Dec 30 Specicay,

NS inteigence anaysts, without seeking the approva ofa judicia ocer ay access

the ecods to obtain foeign inteigence infoation ony though ueies of the

ecods pefoed using "identies, such as teephone nubes, associated with

teoist activity n "identie i e , seection te o seach te used to stat a

quey of the database is ca ed a "seed, and "seeds ust be appoved by one of twenty

two designated ofcias in the NS's Hoeand Secuity naysis Cente o othe pats

of the NS's Signas Inte igence Diectoate Shea Dec , 3 Such appova ay

be given ony upon a deteination by one of those designated ofcias that thee exist

facts giving ise to a "easonabe, articuabe suspicion ("RS that the seection te

19 n her decaraton, Teresa H. Shea, Drector of the Snas nte ence Drectorate at the NSA,states that queres, or term searches, of the metadata dataase are conducted usn metadatadenters, eg teephone numbers, that are assocated wth a foren terrorst oranzatonShea Dec 9 (emphass added) f a teephone numer s ony a exampe of denter thatmay e used as a search term, t s not cear what other denters may e used to query thedataase, and the Govement has not eaorated See eg, Oct 203 Prmary Order at 5n.4, -0 (redactn text that appears to dscuss seecton terms) .

7


18/68


to be queed s assocated wth one o oe of the speced foegn teost

oganzatons appoved fo tagetng by the FISC Ho ey Dec 1 5- 1 6 In 2012, fo

exape, fewe than 300 unque dentes et ths RS standad and wee used as

"seeds to quey the etadata, but "the nube of unque dentes has vaed ove the

yeas Shea Dec 24

When an NS nte gence anayst uns a quey usng a "seed, the nzaton

pocedues povde that quey esuts ae ted to ecods of councatons wthn

thee "hops fo the seed ! 22 The quey esuts thus w ncude ony dentes

and the assocated etadata havng a dect contact wth the seed (the st "hop,

dentes and assocated etadata havng a dect contact wth st "hop dentes (the

second "hop, and dentes and assocated etadata havng a dect contact wth

second "hop dentes (the thd "hop ! 22 ; Govt s Opp n at 1 1 In pan

Engsh ths eans that f a seach stats wth teephone nube ( 1 23 45 6-780 as the

"seed, the st hop w ncude a the phone nubes that ( 123 45 6-780 has caed o

eceved cas fo n the ast ve yeas (say, 1 00 nubes, the second hop w ncude

a the phone nubes that each of those 1 00 nubes has caed o eceved cas fo n

the ast ve yeas (say, 00 nubes fo each one of the 1 00 "st hop nubes, o

0,000 tota, and the thd hop w ncude a the phone nubes that each of those

10,000 nubes has caed o eceved cas fo n the ast ve yeas (say, 100 nubes

fo each one of the 1 0000 "second hop nubes, o 1 ,000,000 tota See Shea Dec

A dtrmnaton that a sction trm mts th RAS standard rmans ffctv for 8 daysfor any scton trm rasonaby bvd to b usd by a .S . prson and for on yar for aothr scton trms S Oct 1 1 21 3 Primary Ordr at 1.

1 8


19/68


25 n Th actua numbr of tphon numbrs and thir associatd mtadata capturd

in any givn ury vari of cours, but in th abnc of any pcic rprsntations

from th Govmnt about typica ury rsuts it is iky that th uantity of phon

numbrs capturd in any givn ury woud b vry arg.Z

Ar san ha fwr han 3 unqu dnrs m h S sandard and wr usd as"sds o qury h madaa n 2 2, Ms. Sha nos ha "[b]caus h sam sd dnrcan b qurd mor han onc ovr m, can nra mup rsponsv rcords, and can busd o oban conac numbrs up o hr hops from h sd dnr, h numbr of

madaa rcords rsponsv o such qurs s substantially largr than 300, but is still a vrysmall rcntag ofth total volum ofmtadata rcords " Sha c 4 (mphass addd).Th rs par of hs assron s a arn undrsamn, wh h scond p s vruaymannss whn pacd n conx Frs, as h samp numbrs hav usd n h x abovdmonsra, s possb o arrv a a qury rsu n h mons whn hr hops wh usnvn consrvav numbrsndss o say, hs s "subsanay arr han 3 Ar a,vn f h avra prson n h nd Sas dos no ca or rcv ca s from unquphon numbrs n on yar, wha abou ovr a v-yar prod? And scond, babors hobvous o no ha vn fw mon phon numbrs s "a vry sma prcna of h oavoum of madaa rcors f h Govn has cocd madaa rcords on hundrds ofmons of phon numbrs

Bu s aso asy o man h spdrwb-k rach of h hrhop sarch rownxponnay and capurn vn hhr numbrs of phon numbrs. Suppos, for nsanc, hahr s a prson vn n Nw York Cy who has a phon numbr ha ms h RAS sandardand s approvd as a "sd And suppos hs prson, who may or may no acuay bassocad wh any rrors oranzaon, cas or rcvs cas from unqu numbrs, as nmy xamp Bu now suppos ha on of h numbrs h cas s hs nhborhood omnosPzza shop Th Cour won hazard a uss as o how many dffrn phon numbrs mh daa vn omno s Pzza ou n Nw York Cy n a v-yar prod, bu o ak a pa fromh Govns book of undrsamn, s "subsanay arr han h n h scondhop of my xamp, and woud hrfor mos ky rsu n xponna rowh n h scop ofh qury and ad o m ons of rcords bn capurd by h hrd hop. ( rconz ha som

mnmzaon procdurs dscrbd n rcn FSC ordrs prmn chnca prson oaccss h madaa daabas o "dfa [] hh voum and ohr unwand [ madaa, Oc ,2 3 Prmary Ordr a 6, may, n pracc, rduc h khood of my omno s hypohcaxamp occurrn. Bu, of cours, ha dos no chan h basn fac ha, by h rms ofh FSCs ordrs, h NSA s prmd o run qurs capurn up o hr hops ha canconcvaby capur mons of Amrcans phon rcords. Furhr, hs qurs usn nonRAS-approvd scon rms, whch ar prmd o mak h daabas "usab for nncanayss, id a 5 may vry w hmsvs nvov sarchn across mons of rcords)

1


20/68


Onc a ur is conductd and it rtus a univrs o rsponsiv rcords (i a

univrs l imitd to rcords o communications within thr hops rom th sd) traind

NSA analsts ma thn prorm nw sarchs and othrwis prorm intl ignc

analsis within that univrs o data without using Sapprovd sarch trms See Sha

Dc 26 (NSA analsts ma "chain contacts within th ur rsuts thmsvs); Oct

1 1 20 1 3 Primar Ordr22 According to th Govmnt olowing th "chains o

communicationwhich or chains that cross dirnt communications ntworks is

onl possibl i th mtadata is aggrgatdallows th analst to discovr inormation

that ma not b radil ascrainabl through othr targtd intlligncgathring

tchnius Sha Dcl 46 For xampl th ur might rva that a sd tlphon

numbr has bn in contact with a prviousl unknown US tlphon numbri on

th rst hop See i 58 And rom thr "contactchaining out to th scond and

third hops to xamin th contacts mad b that tlphon numbr ma rval a contact

with othr tlphon numbrs alrad known to th Govmnt to b associatd with a

oign trrorist organization ! 4 7, 62 In short th Buk Tlphon Mtadata

Program is mant to dtct () domstic U S phon numbrs cal ling utside oh U S

to orign phon numbrs associatd with trrorist groups (2) orign phon numbrs

Under the terms of the most recent FISC producton order avalable "q]ueres of the BRmetadata usn S-approved selecton terms may occur ether by manual analyst query orthrouh the automated query process descrbed below Ths automated query process queres thecollected BR metadata (n a collecton store) wth S-approved selecton terms and retusthe hoplmted results from those queres to a corporate store The corporate store may then besearched by approprately and adequately traned personnel for vald foren ntellencepurposes wthout the requrement that those searches use only Sapproved selecton terms.Oct 1 1 20 1 3 Prmary Order at 1 1 (footnote omitted) Ths "automated query process was rstapproved by the FISC n a November 8 20 1 2 order !d at 1 1 n. .

20


21/68


associatd with trrorist groups cang into th US to U S phon numbrs; and (3 )

"possib trroristratd communications btwn US phon numbrs inside th US

See i 44

Sinc th program bgan in May 2006, th FISC has rpatdy approvd

appications undr Sction 86 and issud ordrs dircting tcommunications srvic

providrs to produc rcords in connction with th Buk Tphony Mtadata Program

Sha Dc 3-4 Through Octobr 203, n diffrnt FISC judgs hav issud

thirtyv ordrs authorizing th program Govt ' s Opp' n at 9; see also Sha Dc

3-4; oy Dc 6 Undr thos ordrs, th Govmnt must priodica y sk

rnwa of th authority to co ct tphony rcords (typicay vry ninty days) Sha

Dc 4 Th Govrnmnt has nonthss acknowdgd, as it must, that faiurs to

compy with th minimization procdurs st forth in th ordrs hav occud For

instanc, in January 2009, th Govmnt rportd to th FISC that th NSA had

impropry usd an "art ist of idntirs to sarch th buk tphony mtadata, which

was composd of idntirs that had not bn approvd undr th RAS standard /

37; Ordr, In re Production ofTangible Things om [Redacted] No BR 08-3, 2009

95093 , at *2 (FISC Mar 2 , 2009) ("Mar 2, 2009 Ordr) Ar rviwing th

Govmnt's rports on its noncompianc, Judg Rggi Waton of th FISC concud

that th NSA had ngagd in "systmatic noncompianc with FISCordrd

mnimization procdurs ovr th prcding thr yars, sinc th incption of th Buk

Tphony Mtadata Pogam, and had aso rpatdy mad misrprsntations and

inaccurat statmnts about th program to th FISC judgs Mar 2, 2009 Ordr, 2009

2


22/68


95093 at *25 As a consunc, Judg Waton concudd that h had no

condnc that th Govmnt was doing its utmost to compy with th cou' s ordrs,

and ordrd th NSA to sk FISC approva on a case-by-case basis bfor conducting

any rthr uris of th buk tphony mtadata co ctd pursuant to Sction 86

ordrs. !d at *9; Sha Dc 38 39 This approva procdur rmaind in pac from

March 2009 to Sptmbr 2009 . Sha Dc 38 39.

Notwithstanding this simonth "sanction imposd by Judg Waton, th

Govmnt apparnty has had furhr compianc probms rating to its co ction

programs in subsunt yars In Octobr 20, th Prsiding Judg ofth FISC, Judg

John Bats, found that th Govmnt had misrprsntd th scop of its targting of

crtain intrnt communications pursuant to 5 0 US C 8 8a (i , a diffrnt coction

program than th Buk Tphony Mtadata Program at issu hr) Rfrncing th

2009 compianc issu rgarding th NSA 's us of unauthorizd idnirs to ury th

mtadata in th Buk Tphony Mtadata Program, Judg Bats wrot "th Cout is

Judg Waton notd that, sinc th arist days of th FSCauthorizd coction of cadtai rcords b th NSA, th NSA has o a dail basis, accssd th BR mtadata for purpossof comparing thousads of non-RAS-approvd tphon idntirs on its alrt l ist against thBR mtadata in ordr to idntif an matchs Such accss was prohibitd by th govingminimization procdurs undr ach of th rlvant Cour ordrs Mar 2, 2009 Ordr, 2009WL 91 509 1 3 , at *2 H wnt o to coclud "In summar, sinc anuar 1 5 , 2009, it has nallcom to light that th FIS Cs authorizatios of this vast col lction program hav bn prmisd

on a awd dpiction of how th NSA uss BR mtadata. This misprcption by th FSCxistd from th incption of its authorizd coction in May 2006, buttrssd by rpatdinaccurat statmnts mad in th govmnts submissions, and dspit a govntdvisdand Courtmandatd ovrsight rgim Th minimization procdurs proposd by thgovnt in ach succssiv appicaion and approvd and adoptd as biding by th ordrs ofth FSC hav bn so frqut ad sstmica vioatd that t ca far b said that thiscritica mt of th ovral BR rgim has nvr functiond ffctivy !d. at *5 .

22


23/68


troubld that th govrnmnts rvlations rgarding NSA's acuisit ion of Intt

transactions mark th third instanc in lss than thr yars in which th govrnmnt has

disclosd a substantial misrprsntation rgarding th scop of a major collction

program Mm Op [Redacted} No [rdactd at 1 6 n 14 FISC Oct 3 201 1) Both

Judg Walton's and Judg Bats's opinions wr only rcntly dclassid by th

Govmnt in rspons to th Congrssional and public raction to th Snowdn laksZ

ANALYSIS

I will addrss plaintiffs' statutory claim undr th APA bfor I tu to thir

constitutional claim undr th Fourth Amndmnt

I. Statutory Claim Under the AP A

Invoking this Court' s fdral ustion jurisdiction undr 28 US C 1 3 3 1

plaintiffs allg that th Govmnt' s phon mtadata collction and urying program

xcds th statutory authority grantd by FISA 's "tangibl things provision 50 U S C

1861 and thrby violats th Administrativ Procdur Act APA) 5 USC 706

Available at hp//wdni.go/indephp/newsoom/pess-eass/9-pss-eases203/95 -dni -decassies-ineigencecommuni -documens-egading-coecionundersecion-702-of-hefoeign-ineigencesueiance-ac-sa Whaeer he second "subsaniamisepesenaion was he Goeen appeas o hae redacd i from he foonoe in haopinion

See Ofce of he Di ofNa Ineigence DNI Declasses Inteligence Communi

Documents Regarding Coection Under Section 702 ofthe Foreign Inteligence Surveiance Act(FISA) (Aug 2 20 3) avaiabe at hp://wdnigo/indexphp/newsroompressreeases/9-press-reeases-203/95-dnidecassies-ineigence-communi-documensregarding-coecion-undesecion-702-of-heforeign-ineigence-surveianceac-sa; Ofceof he Dir ofNa' Ineigence DNI Capper Decasses Inteligence Communi DocumentsRegarding Collection Under Section 501 ofthe Foreign Inteligence Surveilance Act FISA)(Sep 0 203) avaiable at hp://wdnigo/indexphp/newsoompress-reeases/9-presseeases-203/927 -dra-documen

23


24/68


See Scond Am Compl 9699; Ps .' Mm. at 2 1 7- 1 9 ; Ps ' Rpl in Supp of Mots.

for Prlim. Inj ("Ps. ' Rpl) [Dkt# 3 1 at 5 1 1 . In paricular plantiffs argu that th

bulk rcords obtaind undr th Bulk Tlphon Mtadata Program ar not "rlvant to

authorizd national scurit invstigations see 50 U S C 1 86 1 (b)(2)(A) and that th

FISC ma not prospctivl ordr tlcommunications srvic providrs to produc

rcords that do not t xist See Ps' Mm at 1 7-1 9; Ps ' Rpl at 5 1 1 In rspons

th Govmnt argus that this Cour lacks subjct mattr jurisdiction ovr this statutor

claim bcaus Congrss implidl prcludd APA rviw of such claims Govmnt

Dfs.' Supplmntal Br. in Opposition to Ps' Mots. Prlim. Inj ("Govt 's Suppl Br)

[Dkt # 43 at 2 For th fol lowing rasons I agr with th Govrnmnt that I am

pcludd from rviwing plaintiffs' AP A claim

Th APA "stablishs a caus of action for thos suffring lgal wrong bcaus

of agnc action or advrsl affctd or aggrivd b agnc action' Koreto.

Vilsack 6 14 F3d 532 536 (DC. Cir 20 1 0) (uoting 5 U SC. 702). In paricular th

AP A prmits such aggrivd prsons to bring suit against th Unitd Stats and its

ofcrs for "rlif othr than mon damags 5 USC 702 such as th injunctiv

rlif plaintiffs sk hr. This gnral waivr of sovrign immunit dos not appl

howvr "if an othr statut that grants consnt to suit xprssl or implidl forbids

t rlif which i s sought ! Similarl th APA's "basic prsumption ofjudicial

rviw [of agnc action Abbott Labs v Gardner 387 US. 1 36 140 ( 1967) dos not

appl "to th xtnt that . . statuts prclud judicial rviw 5 US .C . 70 1 (a)( l )

Accordingl "[th prsumption favoring judicial rviw of administrativ action is just

24


25/68


thata prsumption, Block v. Communi Nutrition /ns. 467 US 340, 349 ( 1 984), and

it may b ovrcom "whnvr th congrssional intnt to prclud judicial rviw is

fairly discrnibl in th statutory schm / at 3 5 1 Assssing "[ whthr a statut

pcluds judicial rviw of agnc action is a ustion of congrssional intnt, which

is dtrmind from th statuts xprss languag, as wll as from th structur of th

statutory schm, its objctivs, its lgis lativ history, and th natur of th

administrativ action involvd Koreto 6 1 4 F 3d at 53 6 (uoting Block 467 US at

345); see also Thunder Basin Coal Co v. Reich 5 1 0 US 200, 207 ( 994)

Th Govmnt insists that two statuts50 U S C 1 86 1 , h "tangibl things

povision of FISA itslf, and 1 8 US C 27 1 2, a provision of th USA PATRIOT Act,

codid in th Stord Communications impliedly prclud this Courts rviw of

plaintiffs statutory APA claim Govt s Oppn at 263 1 ; Govt s Suppl Br at 1 4 Th

txt of Sction 1 86 1 , and th structur and purpos of th FISA statutory schm, as a

whol, do indd rct Congrsss prclusiv intnt Statd simply, Congrss cratd a

closd systm of judicial rviw ofth govmnts domstic forign intllignc

gathring, gnrally 50 U S C 1 803, and of Sction 1 86 1 production ordrs,

spcically, 1 86 1 (. This closd systm includs no rol for third paris, such as

paintiffs hr, nor courts bsids th FISC, such as this District Court Congrss s

prclusiv intnt is thrfor sufcintly clar ow so?

First, and most dirctly , th xt of th applicabl provision of FISA itslf, Sction

1 86 1 , vincs Congrss s intnt to prclud APA claims lik thos brought by plaintiffs

bfor this Court Sction 1 86 1 xprssly provids a right ofjudicial rviw of ordrs to

25


26/68


produc rcords but it ony xtnds that right to th recipients of such ordrs such as

tcommunications sric providrs See 50 USC 1 86 1 ( Congrss thus did not

prcud alljudicia rviw of Sction 1 86 1 production ordrs but I of cours must

dtrmin "whthr Congrss nvrthss forcosd rviw to th cass to which th

[paintiffs] bon[g] Block 467 U S at 34546 And "whn a statut provids a

dtaid mchanism for judicia considration ofparticular issues at th bhst of

particular persons judicia rviw of those issues at th bhst of other persons may b

found to b impidy prcudd ! at 349 (mphass addd); see also i at 34 548

(hoding that th statutory schm of th Agricutura Markting Agrmnt Act

("AMAA) which xprssy providd a mchanism for mik handlers to obtain judicia

rviw of mik markt ordrs issud by th Scrtary of Agricutur impidy prcudd

rviw of thos ordrs in suits brought by mik consumers) That is xacty th cas hr

Congrss has stabishd a dtaid schm ofjudicia rviw of th paricuar issu of

th "gaity of Sction 1 86 1 production ordrs at th bhst of ony rcipints of thos

ordrs 50 U S C 1 86 ((2)(A)(i) ("A prson rciving a production ordr may

chang th legali of that ordr by ing a ptition with th ptiton rviw poo of

FISC judgs (mphasis addd)) 1 86 ((2)(B) ("A judg considring a ptition to

modi or st asid a production ordr may grant such ptition ony if th judg nds that

such ordr does not meet the requirements ofthis section or is otherwise unlawful"

(mphasis addd)) And that schm ofjudicia rviw pacs such changs bfor th

FISC Sction 1 86 1 prmits such changs to b hard ony by th ptition rviw poo

26


27/68


o th FISC See 186((2)(A)(i); 1 803 ()( l ) (th FISC ptition rviw pool "shall

hav urisdiction to rviw ptitions ld pursuant to sction 1 86 1(( I ) . o this titl)

Scond th purpos and lgislativ history o Sction 1 86 1 also suppor th

conclusion that Congrss intndd to prclud AP A claims by third paris Simply put

Congrss did not nvision that third partis such as plaintis would vn ow about th

xistnc o Sction 1 861 ordrs much lss challng thir lgality undr th statut

See, e R Rp No 1 09 1 74 at 1 28 268 (2005) . As th Govmnt points out

"Sction 1 86 1 lik othr provisions o FISA stablishs a scrt and xpditious

procss that involvs only th Govmnt and th rcipint o th ordr in ordr to

"promot its ctiv nctioning as a tool or countrtrrorism Govt' s Opp'n at 29 ;

see also 50 USC. 1 86 1 (d)( l ) (rcipint o production ordr may not "disclos to any

othr prson that th FBI has sought or obtaind an ordr undr Sction 1 86 1 );

1 86 1 (( 5) ( "All ptitions undr this subsction shall b ld undr sal ); 1 8 6 1((4)

("Th rcord o procdings including ptitions ld ordrs grantd and statmnts o

rasons or dcision shall b maintaind undr scurity masurs stablishd by th

Chi Justic o th Unitd Stats in consultation with th Attorny Gnral and th

Dirctor o National Intll ignc ) Congrss did think about third partis such as

prsons whos rcords would b targtd whn it cratd a right to judicial rviw o

Sction 1 86 1 production ordrs or rcipints but it rcognizd that xtnding a simi lar

right to third partis would mak li ttl sns in l ight o th scrcy o such ordrs See

27


28/68


.R. Rp. No 1 09- 1 74 at 1 28 268 ; Govt. 's Opp' n at 29 n 14 ; Gov.' s Suppl Br at 3

Congrss thror considrd th prcis issu o challngs to th lgality o Sction

1 86 1 ordrs and th statut rcts its ultimat conclusions as to who may sk rviw

and in what court. 1 86 (; see also .R. Rp No 109174 at 12829 134 137

(rjcting amndmnt that would hav allowd rcipints o Sction 1 86 1 ordrs to bring

challngs to such ordrs in dral district cout).

But vn stting asid th spcic act that FISA dos not contain a judicial

rviw provision or third paris rgarding Sction 1 86 1 ordrs, Congrss' s prclusiv

intnt is all th mor vidnt whn on considrs, viwing FISA as a whol, that

Congrss did not contmplat th paricipation o third partis in th statutory schm at

al See Ark Dairy Coop Ass 'n v. Dep t ofAgric 573 F. 3d 8 1 5 822 (DC Cir 2009)

(noting that in raching it s dcision in Block "th Suprm Court did not concntrat

simply on th prsnc or absnc o an xplicit right o appal [or consumrs in th

AMAA, but instad notd that in th complx schm' o th AMAA, thr was no

provision or consumr paticipation o any kind.). Indd, until 2006 FISA did not

Conress has aso not provded a suppresson remedy for tanbe thns obtaned underSecton 86, n contrast to the "use of nformaton provsons under neary every othersubchapter of FSA, whch contan such a remedy Compre 5 USC 86 wit 86(e)(evdence obtaned or derved from an eectronc surveance), 825 ( (evdence obtaned orderved from a physca search), 845(e) (evdence obtaned or derved from the use of a penrester or trap and trace devce), 88e (deemn nformaton acqured under the secton to beacqured "from an eectronc surve ance for purposes of Secton 86)

n Arknss Diry, our Crcut Cout addressed a sut concen the AMAA, the same statuteat ssue n Bock The oveent, reyn on Bock hodn that mk consumers were barredom brnn a cam because the statute dd not rant them an express rht to udca revew,arued that mkproducers kewse coud not brn an acton because the AMAA dd notpovde them an express rht to judca revew ether See Ark Diry 573 F3 d at 822 Wheour Crcut Court reected ths arument, statn that "ths approach reads Bock too broady, t

28


29/68


xprssy contmplat participation by vn th recipients of Sction 86 production

ordrs, t alon third partis Rathr, as originally nactd, FISA was charactrizd by a

scrt, x part procss in which only th govmnt participatd Priod See 50

US C 805(a), ()(4); In re Sealed Case 30 F3 d 77, 79 (FISA Ct Rv 2002)

("[Th govmnt is th only party to FISA procdings ") . In passing th USA

PARIO Improvmnt and Rauthorization Act, howvr, Congrss providd an

avnu for rcipints of Sction 86 production ordrs to participat in lit igation bfor

th FISC and thus play a rol in th statutory schm See USA PATRIOT Improvmnt

and Rauthorization Act 06(; Kris & Wilson, 9 7 As such, it would not b

prudnt to trat Congrssional si lnc rgarding third partis as an intnt to provid

reasone a "e Supreme Court [ in Bock] i no concenrae simpy on e presence orabsence o an expici rig o appea in e AMAA, bu insea noe a in e compexsceme' o e AMAA, ere was no provision or consumer paricipaion o any kin !d Ia parcuar case, our Circui Cour oun a e AMAA i, in ac, conempae eparticipation o mik proucers in te reguatory process, an te cout reie on tis actor inpart, in oing a proucers cou bring sui uner e APA !d a 82227 Here, by conras,e ISA sauory sceme oes no conempae any paricipaion by ir paries in e processo reguaing goveena surveiance or oreign ine igence purposes, nor oes Secion 86conempae e paricipaion o ir paies in auicaing e egaiy o proucion orersInee, ony in e as ecae as e ISA sauory sceme permie paricipaion by evenrecipiens o proucion orers

Te USA PATRIOT Improvemen an Reauorizaion Ac aso ae a provision aowingrecipiens o Naiona Securiy eers ("NSs) o seek ucia review o ose eers SUSA PATRIOT Improvemen an Reauorizaion Ac 1 5. In conras o e provision o arig o uicia review o recipiens o Secion 1 86 proucion orers bfor t FISC, e acprovie a e recipien o an NS L (uner any o e ve NS L saues "may, in e UnieSaes isric cour or e isric in wic a person or eniy oes business or resies,peiion or an orer moiying or seing asie e reques 8 U S C 3 5.

29


30/68


broadr judc al rvw than that spccal ly st forth n th statut? Judcal alchmy of

that sort s partcularly napproprat on mattrs affctng natonal scurty

To b sur FISA and Scton 86 do mplcat th ntrsts of cll phon

subscrbrs whn thr srvc provdrs ar producng mtadata about thr phon

communcatons to th Govmnt as I wl l dscuss blow n th contxt of plant ffs'

consttutonal clams But th statutory prcluson nury "dos not only tu on whthr

th ntrsts of a partcular class . . ar mplcatd. Bock 467 U.S. at 347 "Rathr

th prcluson ssu turns ultmatly on whthr Congrss ntndd for that class to b

rld upon to challng agncy dsrgard of th law. /d Hr th dtald procdurs

st out n th statut for judcal rvw of Scton 86 producton ordrs at th bhst

of rcpnts of thos ordrs ndcat that for bttr or wors Congrss dd not ntnd for

Inee, it woul be cuious to eac te opposite conclusiontat even toug te statuteexpessl pemits onl ecipients to callenge Section 8 6 pouction oes in a specic oum(ae Congess ejecte an amenment tat popose to allow tem to bing tei callenges ineeal istict cout at te same time it ecie to allow ecipients oNSs to o exactl tat), eve toug Congess consiee but ecline to exten tat igt ojuicial eview to tipaies, Govt ' s Suppl. B at 3 tese plaintis can noneteless, in eect, callenge toseoes in istict cou b binging a claim une te APA callenging goveent agencconuct In Bloc wen ning tat te AMAA statute peclue claims b milk consumes,te Supeme Cout note tat pemitting consumes to seek juicial eview o milk oesiectl wen te statute equie milk anles to st exaust aministative emeies, "woulseveel isupt tis complex an elicate aministative sceme Bloc 467 US at 34 8; c

actt v. EPA, 132 S Ct 367 374 (201 2) ("Wee a statute povies tat paticula agencaction is eviewable at te instance o one pat, wo must st exaust aministative emeies,te ineence tat it is not eviewable at te instance o ote paties, wo ae not ubjct to teaministative pocess is stong) Pemitting ti paies to come into eeal istict cou tocallenge te legalit o Section 8 6 pouction oes, o govement agenc action conuctepusuant teeto une te banne o an AP A claim woul lkewise ustate te statutosceme ee wee Congess in ISA as set out a specic pocess o juicial eview o toseoes b te ISC

30


31/68


third partis such as plaintiff phon subscribrs hr to challng th Govmnts

1 . h h 30comp anc t t statut

II. Constitutional Claims

A. Jurisdictio

Finding that I lack jurisdiction to rviw plaintiffs APA claim dos not howvr

nd th Court s jurisdictional inuiry Plaintiffs hav raisd svral constitutional

challngs to th Govmnts conduct at issu hr And whil th Govmnt has

inay, agains is backrop o ISA s srucure, purpose, an isory, I n eGoveen s secon precusion argumena 1 8 U S C 27 1 2 aso sows Congress s ineno precue an APA sauory caim uner Secion 1 8 1 , Gov s Opp n a 30more persuasivean i oerwise appears wen reaing a saue aone Secion 27 1 2, wic Congress aeo e Sore Communicaions Ac in 200 1 , provies a "[a]ny person wo is aggrieve by anywiu vioaion o e Sore Communicaions Ac] or o e Wireap Ac] or o secions1 0(a 0 US.C 1 80(a], 30(a 0 US C 1 82(a] , or 40(a [0 US.C 1 84(a oe oreign Ineigence Surveiance Ac may commence an acion in Unie Saes DisricCour agains e Unie Saes o recover money amages Te Govemen argues abecause is saue creaes a mony damag acion agains e Unie Saes or vioaions oree specic provisions o ISA, i ipiey precues an acion or njunctv lfregaringany provision oISA, suc as Secion 1 8 1 See Gov s Oppn a 30-3 1 ; Gov s Supp Br a34 Accoring o e Goveen, "Secion 27 1 2 us eas wi caims or misuses oinormaion obaine uner ISA in grea eai, incuing e inene remey, an ereorepainis ere cano rey on Secion 1 8 1 "o bring a caim or vioaion o ISA s erms aCongress i no provie or uner 1 8 USC 27 1 2 Gov. s Oppn a 31 Inee, JugeWie in e Nore Disric o Caioia came o is same concusion, oing a Secion27 1 2, "by aowing suis agains e Unie Saes ony or amages base on ree provisions oISA] , impiey bans suis agains e Unie Saes a seek injuncive reie uner anyprovision oISA Jwl v Nat ' c. Agncy -- . Supp 2 -, 201 3 WL 382940, a *1 2(ND Ca Juy 23 , 201 3 O course, Secion 271 2 aso expressy provies a "[a]ny acionagains e Unie Saes uner is subsecion sa be e excusive remey agains e UnieSaes or any caims wthn th puvw ofth cton," 18 USC 2712( (empasis ae,

an ereore i mig be argue a Secion 27 1 2 s provision o a remey sou no be reamore broay o ave any precusive impac on vioaions o oer provisions o ISA, suc asSecion 1 8 1 , no "wiin e purview o a secion. Bu wen rea in conuncion wi ISAovera , an in ig o e secre naure o ISA proceeings esigne o avance ineigencegaering or naiona securiy purposes, I agree wi e Goveen a Secion 27 1 2 sprovision o a cerain remey, money amages, or vioaions o ony cerain provisions o ISAsou be rea o rer sow Congress s inen o precue juicia review o APA caims orinjuncive reie by ir paries regaring any provision o ISA, incuing Secion 1 8 1

3 1


32/68


concdd this Court' s authority to rviw ths constitutional claims Govt 's Suppl Br

at 4 I must nonthlss indpndntly valuat my jurisdictional authority see

Henderson ex re Henderson v. Shinseki 3 S Ct 97 202 (20) ("[Fdral courts

hav an indpndnt obligation to nsur that thy do not xcd th scop of thir

jurisdiction and thrfor thy must rais and dcid jurisdictional ustions that th

partis ithr ovrlook or lct not to prss)

Bcaus Articl III courts wr cratd in part to dal with allgations of

constitutional violations US C art III 2 th jurisdictional inuiry hr tus in

th nal analysis on whthr Congrss intndd to prclud judicial rviw of

constitutional claims rlatd to FISC ordrs by any nonFISC courts Not surprisingly

th Suprm Court has addrssd Congrssional ffors to limit constitutional rviw by

Aicl III cours In Webster v Doe 486 US 592 (988) th Court statd mphatically

that "whr Congrss intnds to prclud judicial rviw of constitutional claims its

intnt to do so must b clar at 603 Such a "hightnd showing is ruird "in

part to avoid th srious constitutional ustion' that would aris if a fdral statut wr

construd to dny any judicial forum for a colorabl constitutional claim d (holding

that although a formr CIA mploy who a llgd that h was rd bcaus h was a

homosxual in violation of th AP A and th Constitution could not obtain judicial

rviw undr th APA caus such dcisions wr committd to th agncy' s discrtion

by law 5 U S C 70 l (a)(2) undr a provision of th National Scurity Act of 947 a

court could nonthlss rviw th plaintifs constitutional claims basd on th sam

allgation)

32


33/68


As discussd in Part I abov, FISA dos not includ an xprss right of judicial

rviw for third pary lgal challngs to Sction 86 ordrswhthr constitutional or

othrwis, whthr in th FISC or lswhr But nithr dos FISA contain any

languag expressy barring all judicial rviw of third party claims rgarding Sction

86 ordrsa ncssary condition to vn rais th ustion of whthr FISA' s

statutory schm ofjudicial rviw provids th xclusiv mans of viw for

constitutional claims rlating to Sction 86 production ordrs See Egin v Dep 't of the

Treasury 32 S . Ct. 226, 232 202) "[A ncssary prdicat to th application of

Webster hightnd standard [is a statut that purports to dny any judicial forum for

a colorabl constitutional claim); see aso McBryde v Comm to Review Circuit

Counci Conduct & Disabii Orders ofthe udicia Conference of S 264 F.3d 52, 59

C. Cir. 200) th D.C. Circuit "nd[s prclusion o f rviw for both as applid and

facial constitutional challngs only if th vidnc of congrssional intnt to prclud is

clar and convincing' . [and w hav not rgardd broad and smingly

comprhnsiv statutory languag as supplying th ncssary clarity to bar as applid

constitutional claims); ngar v Smith 667 F .2d 88, 9396 D.C . Cir. 98) holding

that statutory languag in 22 U.SC. 63oc) stating administrativ dtrminations

"shall b nal and shall not b subjct to rviw by any court did not bar cours from

haring constitutional claims rlatig to th statut, absnt a clar xprssion of

Congrss s intnt to bar such claims in th statut' s lgislativ history ) . Bcaus FISA

contains no broad and smingly comprhnsiv statutory languag xprssly barring

judicial rviw of any claims undr Sction 86, lt alon any languag dirctd at

33


34/68


constitutiona clams n partcular, Congrss has not dmonstratd an ntnt to prclud

consttutonal clams sufcnt to vn trggr th Webster hghtnd standard n th

rst plac, lt alon "clar nough to mt t.

Ths, of cours, maks good sns Th prsumpton that judcal rvw of

consttutonal clams s avalabl n fdral dstrct courts s a strong on, Webster 486

U.S . at 603 , and f th Webster hghtnd standard s to man anythng, t s that

Congrss's ntnt to prclud rvw of consttutonal clams must b much clarr than

that sufcnt to show impied prcluson of statutory clams. Whr, as hr, cor

ndvdual consttutonal rghts ar mplcatd by Govmnt acton Congrss should

not b abl to cut off a ctzn s rght to judcal rvw of that Govrnmnt acton smply

bcaus t ntndd for th conduct to rman scrt by opraton of th dsgn of ts

statutory schm. Whl Congrss has grat lattud to crat statutory schms l k

FISA, t may not hang a cloak of scrcy ovr th Consttuton

B. Preliminar Injuncin

Whn rulng on a moton for prlmnary njuncton, a court must consdr

"whthr (1) th plantff has a substantal lklhood of succss on th mrts; (2) th

plantff would suffr rrparabl njury wr an njuncton not grantd; (3) an njuncton

would substantally njur othr ntrstd parts ; and ( 4) th grant of an njuncton

would furthr th publc ntrst. Sottera nc v. Food & Drug Admin 627 F 3d 89 1 ,

34


35/68


893 (DC. Cr 2010) (ntea quotaton marks omtted) I w address each ofthese

factors n tu.

1. Plaints Have Shown a Substantial Likelhood ofSuccess on theMerits.

In addressng pantffs ' ke hood of success on the merts of ther consttutona

cams, I w focus on ther ourth Amendment arguments, whch I nd to be the most

key to succeed. rst, however, I must address pantffs' standng to chaenge the

varous aspects of the Buk Teephony Metadata Program See Jack s Canoes & Kayaks,

LLC v at ! Park Serv 933 . Supp. 2d 58 6 (D.DC 2013) ("The rst component of

the ke hood of success on the merts prong usuay eamnes whether the pant ffs

have standng n a gven case (ntea quotaton marks omtted))

a. Paintiffs Have Standing to Chaenge Buk TeephonyMetadata Coection and Anaysis

"To estabsh Arce III standng, an njury must be concrete, partcuarzed, and

actua or mmnent; fary traceabe to the chaenged acton; and redressabe by a

favorabe rung. Capper v Amnes nt SA 1 33 S. Ct. 1 1 38 1 (201 3 ) (ntea

Our Circui has radiionay appied a "siding scae approach o hese four facors Davis vPension Beneft Guar Corp 57 F3 d 288 29 (DC Cir. 2009) In oher words "a srongshowing on one facor coud make up for a weaker showing on anoher Sherley v. Sebelius,644 F 3d 388 392 (DC Cir 20 ). Foowing he Supreme Court's decision in Winter v

NRDC n 555 US 7 (2008) however our Circui "has suggesed wihou deciding haWinter shoud be read o abandon he siding-scae analysis in favor of a more demandingburden requiring Plainiffs o independenly demonsrae boh a ikelihood of success on hemeris and irreparable harm Smith v Henderson --- F Supp 2d --- 20 3 WL 2099804 a *4(DDC. May 5 20 3) (ciing Sherley, 644 F3d a 392) Regardess of how Winter is read heCourt's analysis here is unaffeced because I concude ha painiffs have made a sufcienshowing of boh a likeihood of success on he meris and irreparabe harm.

See supra noe 7

35


36/68


quotaton marks omtted) In apper the Supreme Court held that plantffs lacked

standng to challenge NSA survellance under FISA because ther "hghly speculatve

fear that they would be targeted by surel lance rel ed on a "speculatve chan of

poss b ltes nsufcent to demonstrate a "certanly mpendng njury at 4750

Moreover, the apper plantffs "selfncted njures ( e. , the costs and burdens of

avodng the feared survell ance) could not be traced to any provable govement

actvty at 5053 That s not the case here

The NSAs Bulk Telephony Metadata Program nvolves two potental searches

() the bulk collecton ofmetadata and (2) the analyss ofthat data through the NSAs

queryng process For the fol lowng reasons, I have concluded that the plantffs have

standng to challenge both Frst, as to the collecton, the Supreme Court decded

apperjust months before the June 203 news repors revealed the estence and scope

of ceran NSA surve llance actvtes Thus, whereas the plantffs n apper could only

speculate as to whether they would be survelled at all , plantffs n ths case can pont to

strong evdence that, as Verzon customers, ther telephony metadata has been collected

for the last seven years (and stored for the last ve) and wl l contnue to be col lected

noe in passing one signican difference beween he meadaa coecion a i ssue in his caseand he eecronic surveiance a issue in Clappr As he Cour noed in Clappr, "if heGoveen inends o ue or discose informaion obained or derived from a [50 U.S C. ]

1 8 8 1a acquisiion in judicia or adminisraive proceedings i mus provide advance noice of isinen, and he affeced person may chaenge he awfuness of he acquisiion. 1 33 S . C. a1 1 54 (ciing 50 U.S. C. 1 806(c) 1 806(e) 1 88 1 e(a)) Secions 1 806(c) and (e) and 1 88 1 e(a),however, appy ony o "informaion obained or derived from eecronic survei anceauhorized by specic saues; hey do not appy o business records coeced under Secion1 86 1 . Nor does i appear ha any oher saue requires he Goveen o noi a criminadefendan if i inends o use evidence derived from an anaysis of he buk eephony meadaacoecion

36


37/68


barrng judca l or legs latve nterventon Compare i at 1 1 48 ("[Respondents have no

actual knowledge ofthe Govements 1 88 1 a targetng practces) with Ps Mem at

1 n, 78 (ctng SC orders and statements from Drector ofNatonal Intellgence);

Suppl Klayman Aff 3 (attestng to status as Verzon customer) ; Strange Aff

(same) In addton, the Govement has declassed and authentcated an Apr 5 , 0 1 3

ISC Order sgned by Judge Vnson, whch conrms that the NSA has ndeed col lected

teephony metadata from Verzon See Apr 5 , 0 1 3 Secondary Order

Stranng mghtly to nd a reason that plantffs nonetheless lack standng to

challenge the metadata collecton, the Govement argues that Judge Vnsons order

names only Verzon Busness Network Serces ("VBNS) as the recpent of the order,

whereas plantffs clam to be Verzon Wreless subscrbers See Govt s Oppn at 1 &

n9 The Govement obvously wants me to nfer that the NSA may not have col lected

records from Verzon Wreless (or perhaps any other non-VBNS entty, such as AT&T

and Sprnt) Curously, the Govement makes ths argument at the same tme t s

descrbng n ts pleadngs a bulk metadata collecton program that can functon ony

because t creates an hstorcal repostoy ta perm retrospete anas o teror

related communcatons across mute teecommunications networks and that can be

mmedately accessed as new terrorstassocated telephone denters come to lght

Govt s Opp n at 1 (emphass added); see aso i at 5 (court orders to segregate and

destroy ndvdual ltgants records "could ultmately have a degradng effect on the

utlty of the program); Shea Decl 5 (removng plantffs phone numbers "could

undermne the results of any authorzed query of a phone number that based on RAS s

37


38/68


assocaed wh one of he dened foregn errors organzaons by emnang, or

cung off poena ca chans)

Pu smpy, he Govemen wans boh ways Vrtuay a of he Govemen' s

brefs and argumens o hs Court epan how he Govemen has aced n good fah o

creae a comprehensive meadaa daabase ha serves as a poenay vauabe oo n

combang errorsmn whch case, he NSA must have coeced meadaa from

Verzon Wreess, he s nge arges wreess carrer n he Uned Saes , as we as

AT&T and Sprn, he second and hrdarges carrers. See Grading the top

carriers in the third quarter of FIERCEWRELESS.COM (Nov. 1 8 20 1 3);

Marguere Reardon, Competitive wireess carriers take on A T&T and Verizon

CNET (Sep. 1 0 201 2) Ye n one foonoe, he Govemen asks me o nd ha

panffs ack sandng based on he heoreca possb y ha he NSA has co eced a

unverse of meadaa so ncompee ha he program coud no possby serve s puave

funcon. Candor of hs ype dees common sense and does no eacy nspre

condence

kewse, I nd ha panffs aso have sandng o chaenge he NSAs queryng

procedures, hough no for he reasons hey pressed a he pre mnary njuncon hearng

hp:Ilw.ercewireesscom/specia-repors/ grading -op-us-carriers-hird -quarer-2 0 1 3

hp://newscnecom/830 1 - 1 03_3- 70803-94/compeiive-wireess-carriers-ake-on-a-ad-verizo.

36 To draw an anaogy if he NSA's program operaes he way he Goveen suggess i doeshe omiing Verizon Wireess AT&T and Sprin from he coecio woud e ike omiigJohn Pau and George from a hisorica anaysis of he Beaes A Rigo-ony daaase doesn make any sese and I cano eieve he Goveme woud creae mainain and so ardenydeend such a sysem

38


39/68


At oral argument, I speccaly asked Mr. Klayman whether plantffs had any "bass to

beeve that the NSA has done any queres nvolvng ther phone numbers Transcrpt of

Nov. 18, 013 Prelmnay Injuncton Hearng at , Kayman Kayman ("P.I. Hr'g

Tr) [Dkt# 4 1 . Mr Kayman responded I thnk they are messng wth me ! He

then went on to expan that he and hs c lents had receved nexpcable text messages

and emals, not to menton a dsk contanng a spyware program. ! see aso Strange

Aff 1 1 7 Unforunately for pantffs, none of these unusual occurrences or

nstances of beng "messed wth have anythng to do wth the queston of whether the

NSA has ever quered or anayzed ther telephony metadata so they do not confer

standng on plantffs

The Govement, however, descrbes the advantages of buk collecton n such a

way as to convnce me that plantffs' metadatandeed everyone s metadatas

analyzed, manualy or automatcally, whenever the Government runs a quey usng as

the "seed a phone number or denter assocated wth a phone for whch the NSA has

not collected metadata (e.g., phones operatng through foregn phone companes)

Accordng to the declaraton submtted by NSA Drector of Sgnas Intelgence

Drectorate ("SID) Teresa H. Shea, the data collected as part of the Bulk Telephony

Metadata Programhad t been n place at that tmewould have a owed the NSA to

determne that a September 1 1 hjacker lvng n the Unted States had contacted a known

a Qaeda safe house n Yemen Shea Decl 1 1 Presumably, the NSA s not collectng

Ot 203 Prmary order at ("Queres o the R metadata usg Sapprovedseetion terms may our either by manual anayst query or through the automated queryproess desribed beow) ; alo pra note 22.

39


40/68


meadaa from whaever Yemen eephone company was servcng ha safehouse, whch

means ha he meadaa program remedes he nvesgave probem n Drecor Shea's

eampe ony he meadaa can be quered o deermne whch caers n he Uned

Saes had ever conaced or been conaced by he arge Yemen safehouse number. See

aso Shea Dec . 44 (he meadaa coecon aows NSA anayss o, among oher

hngs, "deec foregn deners assocaed h a foregn errors organzaon cang

no he U.S and dscover whch domesc deners are n conac wh he foregn

deners.). When he NSA rns such a query, s sysem mus necessary anayze

meadaa for every phone number n he daabase by comparng he foregn arge number

agans a of he sored ca records o deermne whch U. S. phones, f any, have

neraced wh he arge number. 38 Moreover, unke a DNA or ngerprn daabase

whch conans ony a snge "snapsho record of each person herenhe NSA's

daabase s updaed every snge day wh new nformaon abou each phone number

Compare ohnson v Quander 440 3d 489 49899 (D C. Cr 00), with Gov.'s

Opp'n a 89 Because he Govemen can use day meadaa coecon o engage n

The dierence beween querying a phone number belonging o a domesic Verizon subscriber(or which meadaa has been colleced and querying a oreign number (or which meadaa hasno been colleced migh be analogized as ollows . query ha begins wih a domesic USphone number is like enering a library and looking o nd all o he sources ha are cied inBattle Cry ofFreedom by James M McPherson (Oxord Universiy Press 1 988 ). You nd haspecic book, open i, and here hey are "Hop one is complee Then, you wan o nd all hesources cied wihin each o hose sources ("hop wo, and so on he end o a very long day,you have looked only a books, aricles, ec ha were lied o Battle Cry of Freedom.

Querying a oreign phone number is l ike enering a library and rying o nd every bookha cies Battle Cry ofFreedom as a source I migh be reerenced in a housand books migh be in jus en I could be in zero The only way o know is o check every book heend o a very long monh you are le wih he "hop one resuls (hose books ha cie Battle CryofFreedom) bu o ge here, you had o open every book in he library

40


41/68


"epettve, suepttous suvellance of a ctzen's pvate gongs on, the NSA database

"mplcates the Fouh Amendment each tme a govement ofcal montos t

ohnson 440 F 3d at 49899 (dstngushng DNA pole n a law enfocement

databasewhch s not seached each tme database s accessedfom a "constantly

updat[ng vdeo feed, and wang that "futue technologcal advances n DNA testng

may empowe the govement to conduct wde-angng DNA dagnets' that ase

justable ctatons to Geoge Owell ) And the NSA can access ts database wheneve

t wants, epeatedly queyng any seed appoved n the last 180 days (fo tems beleved

to be used by U S pesons) o yea (fo all othe tems) See Oct 1 1 , 0 1 3 Pmay

Ode at 1 0

I is irreevan for Fourh Amendmen purposes ha he NSA migh someimes use auomaedanayica soware C Smith, 442 U S a 744-45 ("We are no incined o hod ha a differen

consiuiona resu is required because he eephone company has decided o auomae)

The Goveen conends ha "he mere coecion of Painiffs' eephony meadaa wihou review of he daa pursuan o a query canno be considered a search "because heGoveen's acquisiion of an iem wihou examining is conens does no compromise heineres in preserving he privacy of is conens ' Gov s pp'n a 49 n 33 (quoing Hrtn v.Calrnia 496 US 28, 4 n ( 990) ciing Unite States v. Van Leeuwen 397 US 249,252-53 ( 970)) The cases on which he Govemen reies are inapposie Hrtn invoved heseizure of angibe iems under he pain view docrine 496 U S a 4 42 The Goveenquoes dica abou wheher he seizure of a physica conainer consiues a search of heconainers conens ! a 4 n Likewise he Cour in Van Leeuwen addressed wheherhe deenion of a package consiued an unreasonabe seizure 397 U S a 25253

I n he case ofhe buk eephony meadaa coecion, here is no anaogous "conainerha remains seaed raher, a of he meadaa is handed by he Goveen, at least o hedegree needed o inegrae he meadaa ino he NSAs daabase See Shea Dec 7, 60(goveen may access meadaa for purpose of "rendering [i] useabe o query because "each[eecom provider may no mainain records in a forma ha is subjec o a sandardized query)Thus, unike he conens of he conainer described in Hrtn eephony eadaa is no kep inan unmoesed, opaque package ha obscures i from he Goveen's view

4 1


42/68


Accordngy, pantffs meet the standng requrements set forth n Capper as

they can demonstrate that the NSA has coected and anayzed the teephony metadata

and w contnue to operate the pogram consstent wth ISC opnons and orders.

Whether dong so voates pantffs' ourth Amendment rghts s, of course, a separate

queston and the subject of the net secton, whch addresses the merts of the cams.

See nited States Lawson 4 1 0 3d 73 , 740 n4 (D.C. Cr. 00) ("[Athough couts

sometmes refer to the reasonabe epectaton of prvacy ssue as standng' to contest a

seach, the queston s more propery paced wthn the purvew of substantve outh

Amendment aw than wthn that of standng.' (quotng Minnesota Carter U.S.

83, 88 (1 998)).

b. Plainis Are Likey o Succeed on he Meris o TheirFourh Amendmen Claim

The ourth Amendment protects "[the rght of the peope to be secure n ther

persons, houses, papers, and effects, aganst uneasonabe searches and sezures. U. S.

C. amend IV. That ght "sha not be voated, and no Warants sha ssue, but

upon pobabe cause, suppoted by Oath or afmaton, and partcuay descbng the

pace to be searched, and the persons o thngs to be sezed . A ourth Amendment

"seach occus ether when "the Govement obtans nformaton by physcay

ntrudng on a consttutonay protected area, nited States ones 13 S. Ct. 94, 90n 3 (0 1 ), or when "the govement voates a subjectve epectaton of pvacy that

socety ecognzes as reasonabe, Kyo nited States 3 3 U.S. 7, 33 (00 1 ) (ctng

4


43/68


Katz United States 3 89 U S 347, 3 1 ( 1 97) (Haran, J, concurrng)). Ths case

obvousy does not nvove a physca ntruson, and pantffs do not cam otherwse .

The threshod ssue that I must address, then, s whether p antffs have a

reasonabe epectaton of prvacy that s voated when the Govement ndscrmnatey

coects ther teephony metadata aong wth the metadata of hundreds of m ons of

other ctzens wthout any pacuarzed suspcon of wrongdong, retans a of that

metadata for ve years, and then queres, anayzes, and nvestgates that data wthout

pror udca approva of the nvestgatve targets. If they doand a ourth Amendment

search has thus occurredthen the net step of the anays s w be to determne whether

such a search s "reasonabe. See i at 3 1 (whether a search has occurred s an

"antecedent queston to whether a search was reasonabe)

. The Cllectn and Analyss f Teephnyetadata Cnsttutes a Seach.

The anayss of ths threshod ssue of the epectaton of prvacy must start wth

the Supreme Cour's andmark opnon n Smith aryand 44 U.S 73 5 ( 1 979) whch

the ISC has sad "squarey contro[s when t comes to "[the producton ofteephone

servce provder metadata. Am Mem Op , In re Appication o the [FBI] or a