Court Rejects 'State Secrets' Excuse For Why Feds Want Out Of Lawsuit Over NSA Warrantless Wiretapping

from the bogus-excuses dept

Mon, Jul 8th 2013 2:37pm — Mike Masnick

While there have been a number of new revelations lately about the NSA's surveillance efforts, there have been some long-running on-going legal disputes about it as well. One of the biggest is Jewel vs. the NSA. When we last checked in on that case, the appeals court had sent the case back to the district court, rejecting many of the reasons that the district court had initially dumped the lawsuit. The key question for the district court was whether or not the feds could claim "state secrets" to dump the case again... and the court has just ruled and rejected that excuse, claiming that the government has not successfully shown that there are state secrets that mean the case cannot move forward.

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ lawsuits should be dismissed as a result of the application of the privilege because the state secrets information is so central to the subject matter of the suit that permitting further proceedings would jeopardize national security. Given the multiple public disclosures of information regarding the surveillance program, the Court does not find that the very subject matter of the suits constitutes a state secret. Just as in Al-Haramain, and based significantly on the same set of facts in the record here, the Court finds that although there are certainly details that the government has not yet disclosed,
because of the voluntary disclosures made by various officials since December 2005, the nature and purpose of the [Terrorist Surveillance Program], the ‘type’ of persons it targeted, and even some of its procedures are not state secrets. In other words, the government’s many attempts to assuage citizens’ fears that they have not been surveilled now doom the government’s assertion that the very subject matter of this litigation, the existence of a warrantless surveillance program, is barred by the state secrets privilege.
507 F.3d at 1200; see also Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974, 986-88, 991 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (holding that the existence of a program of monitoring the contents of certain telephone communications was no longer a state secret as a result of the public statements made by the President and the Attorney General). Accordingly, the Court does not find dismissal appropriate based on the subject matter of the suits being a state secret.

This is a big win for the EFF, which is representing Jewel in trying to sue the government over the warrantless wiretapping. Given other cases (including the Hepting case mentioned in this ruling) which basically said that people can't sue the telcos, but can sue the government, it would be nice to actually be able to sue the government over these actions without them simply being able to declare "state secrets" and have the case thrown out completely.

This does not mean that there aren't issues that involve state secrets in the case -- and the court notes that certainly parts of the evidence and information do need to be kept secret. But that's no excuse for throwing out the entire case. Of course, the ruling also has some unfortunate things in it as well, dismissing statutory claims based on "sovereign immunity." However, it leaves open the non-statutory claims for further briefing. So the case moves forward, rather than being completely shut down by a state secrets claim, but there are some limitations on where it can go. Still, given all of the recent revelations, not being able to hide completely behind "state secrets" is a big step in the right direction.

Gov Uscourts Cand 207206 148 0 (PDF)Gov Uscourts Cand 207206 148 0 (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: jewel v nsa, nsa, state secrets, warrantless wiretapping

6 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

FM Hilton, 8 Jul 2013 @ 3:26pm

Yes, we can!
This is a momentous event, actually-when a lower court has ordered that a lawsuit with the government as a plaintiff can continue.

First win for the good guys.

Absolutely awesome. Love to see that 'state secrets' crap bite the big one, by the courts, no less!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 3:39pm

Re: Yes, we can!
They didn't say 'state secrets' isn't a legitimate defense, they just said in this case where the secrets aren't secret (in anyone's eyes other than the government), you can't use that excuse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 8 Jul 2013 @ 3:39pm

But, but, but Your Honor, the lawyers for the NSA are not allowed to view the materials even though it is available on the web. It must be kept secret from them and anyone who works for the NSA. National security is on the line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 1:55am

if the court allows this, it would give the Feds an excuse to use as and when evr they felt like it. no one would ever get the truth about anything involving the feds at any time. good on the judge but i wonder how long before he is replaced
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 9:22am

Re:
I have noticed that when governments don't get the desired response from a judge, they move to another judge and have it overruled. It's good the EFF was able to use that tactic in the peoples favor this time around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pauln Gerold Sparks, 9 Jun 2014 @ 12:13pm

i have lept enough evidence
I have kept enough evidence they can destroy what they wish. how do you this direct phone lines made it out with names to each line
and you do not have my permission for third party access...(cookie)
[ link to this | view in thread ]