Klayman v. Obama
957 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2013 WL 6571596, 59 Communications Reg. (P&F) 825 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government's systematic, bulk collection of telephone metadata from virtually every citizen constitutes a search that likely violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches. A citizen's reasonable expectation of privacy is infringed by this long-term, high-tech surveillance program, which is critically different from the limited pen register use upheld in Smith v. Maryland.
Facts:
- Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which included Section 215 authorizing the government to obtain orders for "tangible things" relevant to terrorism investigations.
- Beginning in May 2006, the National Security Agency (NSA), with approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), initiated a program to collect telephone metadata (such as numbers called, call times, and duration) in bulk from major U.S. telecommunications companies, including Verizon.
- The NSA aggregated this collected metadata into a single database, retaining records for up to five years, to analyze connections between suspected terrorists and other individuals.
- Larry Klayman and Charles Strange were subscribers of Verizon Wireless cellular phone service during the period the NSA's bulk metadata collection program was in operation.
- On June 5, 2013, news reports based on classified documents leaked by Edward Snowden publicly revealed the existence and scope of the NSA's bulk telephony metadata collection program.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry Klayman and Charles Strange (plaintiffs) sued several federal agencies and officials (the Government) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the government's bulk telephony metadata collection program violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment and exceeded statutory authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
- The plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction seeking an order to bar the government from collecting their call records and to require the destruction of any records already collected.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Security Agency's bulk collection and querying of telephone metadata from virtually all U.S. citizens violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Richard J. Leon
Yes, the NSA's bulk telephony metadata collection program likely violates the Fourth Amendment. The court found that plaintiffs have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the aggregate of their telephony metadata, and the government's indiscriminate collection and analysis of that data constitutes a search. This search is likely unreasonable because the government's justification—the need for speed in counterterrorism investigations—is not supported by evidence showing the program has ever prevented an imminent attack, and thus this interest is outweighed by the severe intrusion on the privacy of virtually every American. The Supreme Court's 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland, which found no expectation of privacy in dialed numbers, is inapplicable due to the monumental changes in technology, the ubiquity of cell phones, and the unprecedented scale and duration of the government's data collection, which reveals a 'mosaic' of citizens' private lives.
Analysis:
This decision represents one of the first and most significant judicial challenges to the NSA's bulk metadata collection program following the Edward Snowden revelations. It directly confronted the government's reliance on Smith v. Maryland in the digital age, arguing that technological advancements and societal changes can render older Fourth Amendment precedents inapplicable to modern, large-scale surveillance. By finding a reasonable expectation of privacy in aggregated metadata, the opinion established a powerful legal framework for future cases questioning the constitutionality of dragnet government surveillance. Although the ruling was stayed pending appeal, its reasoning heavily influenced the subsequent legal and legislative debate over government surveillance powers.
