Judge Says Supreme Court Should Overturn Awful Surveillance Precedent, But Until It Does, He Has To Reject Case Against NSA
from the a-small-step dept
We've written plenty about the case Smith v. Maryland, which established the dangerous Supreme Court precedent that there is no 4th Amendment expectation of privacy to be found in any data or information you give to a third party. Judge Richard Leon, back in December, ruled that the NSA surveillance efforts were so different from the situation in Smith (involving police getting dialing information on a single person from the phone company) that it wasn't an applicable precedent in the case in front of him, brought by Larry Klayman. That case is now being appealed.In a new case, Smith v. Obama (assuming no relation to the "Smith" in the Maryland case), Judge Lynn Winmill, in the Idaho district court, has said that Judge Leon's ruling should be the model for a Supreme Court ruling overturning Smith v. Maryland. However, since no such ruling has taken place, he has to reject the claim in this case:
Judge Leon's decision should serve as a template for a Supreme Court opinion. And it might yet. Justice Sotomayor is inclined to reconsider Smith, finding it “ill-suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.” See U.S. v. Jones, 132 U.S. 945, 957 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring). The Fourth Amendment, in her view, should not “treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy.”There's a bit more to the case overall, as it focuses on "location" data, and it's not entirely clear if the NSA is really collecting location data. However, as Judge Winmill notes, the Supreme Court's rulings in Jones suggest that the Supreme Court may be finally recognizing how outdated Smith v. Maryland is -- and it's good to see other judges recognizing this as well, even if they're constrained by existing precedent elsewhere.
But Smith was not overruled, and it continues – along with the Circuit decisions discussed above – to bind this Court. This authority constrains the Court from joining Klayman. Accordingly, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny Smith's motion for injunctive relief.
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: layman, lynn winmill, nsa, richard leon, smith v. maryland, supreme court, surveillance, third party doctrine
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If that case gets over turned...
I can *FINALLY* shove it into the face of all the people who claim that the 3rd Party Doctrine is legit.
Because it's not. It should have NEVER been legit in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If that case gets over turned...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No judge is "constrained" by any existing precedent.
They may make a decision that will be overturned, but it is not like someone will come in and arrest them for their judicial opinions.
The "existing precedent" is, as Chief Asshole Roberts shows, just a cheap way to blow smoke up our asses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The order must be appealed up the chain to SCOTUS so they can rule on the merits of the case and overturn Smith. Them's the rules.
If it does get to Roberts and he is the Chief Asshole like you say (and I at least partially agree), then we can say that part of the system is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USSC guilty of Treason
That's what they deserve to have happen for their treasonous activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USSC guilty of Treason
I'm not sure that situation would play out like you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USSC guilty of Treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USSC guilty of Treason
Technically, that would be the day the United States ceased to exist (because of the military coup that you're advocating) and very probably the first day of our next civil war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USSC guilty of Treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge Winmill completely rejects your argument that Smith v. Maryland and its progeny are not binding precedent for the Fourth Amendment analysis of the NSA surveillance. She also rejects Judge Leon's opinion in Klayman v. Obama that you hold so near and dear.
Here's an important part of the opinion you didn't quote: "Because Jones does not apply, the weight of authority favors the NSA. The Supreme Court's decision in Smith, supplemented by the Circuit's decisions in Reed, Forrester, and Golden Valley, and the two District Court decisions on point, Clapper and Moalin, support a finding that there is no Fourth Amendment violation here."
Note too how she doesn't just look at Smith, as you always do. You have to look at the body of law that has developed since Smith, like those cases from the Ninth Circuit that apply Smith to different circumstances.
That's great if you want to focus on the dicta at the end where she tells us her irrelevant personal opinion, but let's not lose sight of the fact that she absolutely rejects your read of the Fourth Amendment precedent. She in no uncertain terms says that Smith applies, Klayman is wrong, and the NSA surveillance does not violate the Fourth Amendment. So it's yet one more court completely rejecting your views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge Winmill completely rejects your argument that Smith v. Maryland and its progeny are not binding precedent for the Fourth Amendment analysis of the NSA surveillance. She also rejects Judge Leon's opinion in Klayman v. Obama that you hold so near and dear.
Here's an important part of the opinion you didn't quote: "Because Jones does not apply, the weight of authority favors the NSA. The Supreme Court's decision in Smith, supplemented by the Circuit's decisions in Reed, Forrester, and Golden Valley, and the two District Court decisions on point, Clapper and Moalin, support a finding that there is no Fourth Amendment violation here."
Note too how she doesn't just look at Smith, as you always do. You have to look at the body of law that has developed since Smith, like those cases from the Ninth Circuit that apply Smith to different circumstances.
That's great if you want to focus on the dicta at the end where she tells us her irrelevant personal opinion, but let's not lose sight of the fact that she absolutely rejects your read of the Fourth Amendment precedent. She in no uncertain terms says that Smith applies, Klayman is wrong, and the NSA surveillance does not violate the Fourth Amendment. So it's yet one more court completely rejecting your views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not actually true. Judge Winmill notes that, given the situation, the court is bound by those precedents, even if it feels those precedents are incorrect.
Note too how she doesn't just look at Smith, as you always do. You have to look at the body of law that has developed since Smith, like those cases from the Ninth Circuit that apply Smith to different circumstances.
Right, but all of those are based on Smith. If the court is pointing out that Smith is incorrect, all of those other precedents would also be up for grabs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Smith v Maryland is untenable as the corner stone of surveillance. It has become the primary foothold, save state's secrets doctrines, of that which is in clear conflict with the text of the constitution to which all case law must eventually defer.
The fact that a handful of cases can prevent even fleeting consideration of new facts, new findings and new realities, to me, indicates a cracked barrel. Structure fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's completely true. Judge Winmill applies Smith and its progeny to find that the NSA surveillance does not violate the Fourth Amendment. That's the holding of the case. Her personal opinion that Smith should be revisited is irrelevant dicta. It doesn't matter whether she thinks those precedents were wrongly decided. She applied those precedents and rejected your reading of them. Own up to it. Applying precedent, she thinks it's not unconstitutional. That's the opposite of what you have said.
Right, but all of those are based on Smith. If the court is pointing out that Smith is incorrect, all of those other precedents would also be up for grabs.
You missed the point. Yes, those precedents rely on Smith, but they also expand the holding of Smith to other contexts. You always point at Smith and say how the NSA surveillance is different than the particular surveillance in Smith. But Smith isn't the only case that matters. There's later Supreme Court, appellate court, and trial court opinions that have built upon Smith--and you conveniently never discuss that. The point remains that Judge Winmill actually applied Smith and its progeny and actually held that under those precedents the NSA surveillance does not violate the Fourth Amendment. That Judge Winmill thinks a different result should follow should the Supreme Court change its view is irrelevant. The thing is, the Fourth Amendment turns on what the law actually is, not what we wish it would be, and that's why Judge Winmill upheld the constitutionality of the NSA surveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks.
Mike quoted it in the article above: "Judge Leon’s decision should serve as a template for a Supreme Court opinion. And it might yet. . . . But Smith was not overruled, and it continues – along with the Circuit decisions discussed above – to bind this Court."
Judge Leon had held that Smith did not apply. Judge Winmill disagrees and holds that Smith does apply. She's saying that the Supreme Court could use Judge Leon's opinion as a template for an opinion overruling its own opinion Smith. But since the Court hasn't done that, Judge Leon is wrong and Smith still controls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not accurate. Winmill is pointing out two things: (1) the Leon ruling is over a slightly different matter and (2) the Leon ruling is, of course, not precedential on a totally different district court. Nowhere does it say the ruling is *wrong*. Just that it has no precedent here.
If you read the whole ruling you'll see that since the cases are not actually about the same program, the Leon ruling is less relevant as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not sure what you mean by a "different matter." Both cases are over NSA surveillance of telephony metadata. And of course Klayman is not binding precedent. That's not why Judge Winmill doesn't follow it. She doesn't follow it because she's duty-bound to follow Smith and its progeny in the Ninth Circuit, which she says applies to the NSA surveillance. Those Ninth Circuit cases would not have been binding on Judge Leon, so there is that difference. But her ultimate holding is that Smith applies, which is the opposite of what Judge Leon held (and what you believe should be the law). Therefore, she disagrees with Judge Leon. If you think the cases involved different programs, please explain. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]