Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T04:58:36.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

US Domestic Surveillance after 9/11: An Analysis of the Chilling Effect on First Amendment Rights in Cases Filed against the Terrorist Surveillance Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2014

Sunny Skye Hughes
Sunny Skye Hughes*
Affiliation:
Department of Telecommunications, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, 2019 Weimer Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611USA, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

civil libertiessurveillancechillprivacyFourth Amendmentlibertés civilessurveillanceeffet paralysantvie privéequatrième amendement
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , December 2012 , pp. 399 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Banks, William C. and Bowman, M.E., “Executive Authority For National Security Surveillance,” American University Law Review 50 (2000), 7Google Scholar.

2 Milton, John, Areopagitica (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1882), 51–52Google Scholar.

3 See generally Freund, Paul A., “The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties,” Vanderbilt Law Review 533 (1951), 4Google Scholar.

4 See generally Schauer, Frederick, “Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the ‘Chilling Effect’,” Boston University Law Review 58 (1978), 685Google Scholar.

5 Dolich, Michael N., “Alleging a First Amendment ‘Chilling Effect’ to Create a Plaintiffs Standing: A Practical Approach,” Drake Law Review 43 (1994), 175–76Google Scholar.

6 Elton, Mayo, Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company: The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilisation (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975)Google Scholar. See generally Dolich, “Alleging a First Amendment ‘Chilling Effect’“; Risinger, D. Michaelet al, “The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion,” California Law Review 90 (2002), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Burkhart, Laurie, Haubert, Michael, and Thorley, Damon, The Effect of Government Surveillance on Social Progress (Boulder, CO: Ethica Publishing, 2004), http://www.ethicapublishing.com/5CH1.htmGoogle Scholar.

8 Stone, Geoffrey R., “Chilling Effect,” Huffington Post (02 16, 2007), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/chilling-effect_b_41430.htmlGoogle Scholar.

9 Schauer, “Fear, Risk and the First Amendment.“

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid., 689.

13 Ibid., 691.

14 See generally ibid.; Ku, Raymond Shih Ray, “The Founders' Privacy: The Fourth Amendment and the Power of Technological Surveillance,” Minnesota Law Review 86 (2002)Google Scholar; Slobogin, Christopher, “Peeping Techno-Toms and the Fourth Amendment: Seeing Through Kyllo's Rules Governing Technological Surveillance,” Minnesota Law Review 86 (2002)Google Scholar.

15 Meese v Keene, 481 US 465 (1987).

16 Amnesty International v Clapper, 638 F.3d 118 (2d Cir, March 21, 2011).

17 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, HR 6304, enacted July 10, 2008.

18 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, HR 6304, enacted July 10, 2008, Pub L No 110-261.

19 Presbyterian Church (USA) v United States, 870 F.2d 518 (9th Cir, 1989).

20 Strandburg, Kathryn, “Freedom of Association in a Networked World: First Amendment Regulation of Relational Surveillance,” BC Law Review 49 (2008), 819–20Google Scholar.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid., 819-20.

23 Burkhart, et al., The Effect of Government Surveillance, 1–2Google Scholar.

24 Ibid.

25 Solove, Daniel J., “The First Amendment as Criminal Procedure,” NYU Law Review 82 (2007), 154–55Google Scholar.

26 Sabbeth, Kathryn A., “Towards an Understanding of Litigation as Expression: Lessons from Guantanamo,“ UC Davis Law Review 44 (2011), 1520Google Scholar.

27 Ibid.

28 See generally Lynch, Matthew, “Closing the Orwellian Loophole: The Present Constitutionality of Big Brother and the Potential for a First Amendment Cure,” First Amendment Law Review 5 (2007)Google Scholar.

29 Stone, “Chilling Effect.“

30 Riggs v Albuquerque, 916 F.2d 582 (10th Cir, 1990).

31 Lynch, “Closing the Orwellian Loophole.“

32 Stone, “Chilling Effect.“

33 Halkin v Helms, 690 F.2d 977 (DC Cir, 1982).

34 Laird v Tatum, 408 US 1 (1972).

35 See generally Michelman, Scott, “Who Can Sue Over Government Surveillance,” UCLA Law Review 57 (2009)Google Scholar.

36 Ibid., 81.

37 Ibid., 110.

38 Ibid., generally.

39 Ibid.

40 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Took Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, (USA PATRIOT Act), Pub L No 107-56 (October 12, 2001).

41 Ibid.

42 FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub L No 95-511.

43 FISA Amendments Act of 2008, s 108.

44 Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, American Civil Liberties Union v National Security Agency, No 2:06-CV-10204 (ED Mich, filed January 17, 2006), Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/nsacomplaint.011706.pdf at para 1.

45 Ibid, at para 1.

46 Ibid., Memorandum Opinion (Doc No 70) (ED Mich, filed August 17, 2006), http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/nsamemo.opinion.judge.taylor.081706.pdf at 43.

47 US v Robel, 389 US 258 (1967).

48 Marcus v Search Warrants, 367 US 717 (1961).

49 Dombrowski v Pfister, 380 US 479 (1965).

50 Am Civil Liberties Union v Nat'l Sec Agency, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007), http://fll.nndlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/nsa/aclunsa70607opn.pdf.

51 Center for Constitutional Rights v Bush, No 06-CV-00313 (SDNY 2006). The Center for Constitutional Rights, including its lawyers and legal staff, are the plaintiffs in the case.

52 Transfer Order, Docket No. 1791, CA No l:06-cv-00313, Center for Constitutional Rights et al v Bush et al (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, filed December 19, 2006), http://ccrjustice.org/files/CCR_NSA_MDLfinaltransferorder_12_06.pdf.

53 Transcript of Proceedings, National Security Agency Telecommunication Record Litigation, CCR v Bush, MDL No. 06-1791 (ND Cal, filed August 9, 2007), http://ccrjustice.org/files/MDL%20oral%20argument%20on%20dispositive%20motions,%20August%209%202007.Pdf

54 Order, National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, CCR v Obama, Docket 51, 3:07-cv-01115-VRW (ND Cal, filed January 31, 2011), http://ccrjustice.org/files/MDL%20oral%20argument%20on%20dispositive%20motions,%20August%209%202007.pdf.

55 Order, National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, CCR v Obama, Docket 51, 3:07-cv-01115-VRW (ND Cal, filed January 31, 2011), http://ccrjustice.org/files/MDL%20oral%20argument%20on%20dispositive%20motions,%20August%209%202007.pdf.

56 Order, National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, CCR v Obama, Docket 51, 3:07-cv-01115-VRW (ND Cal, filed January 31, 2011), http://ccrjustice.org/files/MDL%20oral%20argument%20on%20dispositive%20motions,%20August%209%202007.pdf.

57 Brief for Plaintiff Appellants, No. 11-15956, CCR v Bush (9th Cir, filed August 29, 2011), http://ccrjustice.org/files/Plaintiff-Appellants%27%200pening%20Brief%20-%20FINAL_2.pdf.

58 Brief for Plaintiff Appellants, No. 11-15956, CCR v Bush (9th Or, filed August 29, 2011), http://ccijustice.org/nles/Plaintiff-Appellants%27%20Opening%20Brief%20-%20FINAL_2.

59 Hepting v AT&T Corp, Nos C-06-0672-JCS and 3:06-cv-00672-VRW (ND Cal 2006).

60 Hepting v AT&T Corp, Nos C-06-0672-JCS and 3:06-cv-00672-VRW (ND Cal 2006).

61 Declaration of Mark Klein in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Hepting v AT&T Corp, No C-06-0672-VRW (ND Cal, filed under seal, March 28, 2006; redacted version released June 8, 2006), https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/Mark%20Klein%20Unredacted%20Decl-Including%20Exhibits.PDF.

62 First Statement of Interest of the United States (Doc No 82-1), Hepting v AT&T Corp, No C-06-0672-JCS (ND Cal, filed April 28, 2006), http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/USA_statement_of_interest.pdf.

63 Declaration of John D. Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence (Doc No 124-2), Hepting v AT&T Corp, No 3:06-cv-00672-VRW (ND Cal, filed May 13, 2006), https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/Declo0ohnNegroponte.pdf, at para 9.

64 Declaration of Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander, Director, National Security Agency (Doc 124-3), ibid., https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/DeclKeithAlexander.pdf, at para 9.

65 Order on motions to dismiss (Doc No 308), ibid., (ND Cal, filed July 20, 2006), https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/308_order_on_mtns_to_dismiss.pdf.

66 Petition by intervenor United States for interlocutory appeal under 28 USC §1292(b), Hepting v AT&T Corp, No C-06-672-VRW (9th Cir, filed July 31, 2006), https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/att/1292b_petition.pdf. See also Petition for permission to appeal, ibid., https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/att/Petition.PDF.

67 Order granting petition to appeal, Hepting v AT&T Corp, DC No CV-06-00672-VRW (9th Cir, filed November 7, 2006), https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/att/appealgranted.pdf.

68 In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, 444 F Supp 2d 1332 (JPML, August 9, 2006) (No MDL-1791). The consolidated cases include Conner v AT&T Corp, No 1:06-632 (ED Cal 2006); Souder v AT&T Corp, No 3:06-1058 (SD Cal 2006); Schwarz v AT&T Corp, No 1:06-2680 (ND Cal 2006); Terkel v AT&T Inc, No 1:06-2837 (ND Cal 2006); Herron v Verizon Global Networks, No 2:06-2491 (ED La 2006); Fuller v Verizon Communications, No 9:06-77 (D Mont 2006); Dolberg v AT&T Corp, No 9:06-78 (D Mont 2006); Marck v Verizon Communications, No 2:06-2455 (EDNY 2006); Mayer v Verizon Communications, No 1:06-3650 (SDNY 2006); Mines v Verizon Networks, No 3:06-694 (D Or 2006); Bissit v Verizon Communications, No 1:06-220 (DRI 2006); Mahoney v AT&T Communications, No 1:06-223 (D RI 2006); Mahoney v Verizon Communications, No 1:06-224 (D RI 2006); Potter v BellSouth Corp, No 3:06-469 (MD Tenn 2006); Trevino v AT&T Corp, No 2:06-209 (SD Tex 2006); Harrington v AT&T, No 1:06-374 (WD Tex 2006).

69 Electronic Frontier Foundation, unofficial transcript of 9th Cir hearing in Hepting v AT&T (August 15, 2007), https://www.eff.org/fdes/filenode/att/hepting_9th_circuit_hearing_transcript_08152007.pdf. See also Liptak, Adam,“U.S. Defends Surveillance to 3 Skeptical Judges”, New York Times (08 16, 2007), http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/wasmngton/16nsa.html?_r=l&oref=login&pagewanted=printGoogle Scholar.

70 Order for remand (Doc 377), Hepting v AT&T, No 3:06-cv-00672-VRW (9th Cir, filed September 17, 2008), https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/att/uscaorder_917.pdf. See also United States' notice of motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, Hepting v AT&T, No. M:06-cv-01791-VRW (ND Cal, filed September 21, 2008), https://www.eff.Org/sites/default/files/filenode//802-MTD.pdf.

71 Order for dismissal (MDL Docket No 06-1791 VRW), Hepting v AT&T (ND Cal, filed June 3, 2009), https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/att/orderhepting6309.pdf.

72 Navy v Egan, 484 US 518 (1988).

73 Joint appellants' opening brief of all plaintiffs-appellants except no 09-16683, Hepting v AT&T, MDL No 06-1791-VRW (ND Cal, filed December 8, 2009), https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/att/Hepting_9th_opening_brief.pdf.

74 Hearing, Hepting v AT&T, MDL No 06-1791-VRW (9th Cir, August 31, 2011), https://www.en.org/files/hepting.wav.mp3.

75 Ray Anderson et al v Verizon Communications et al, Case No 09-16720. Decided with Hepting v AT&T on August 31, 2011, in the Northern District of California US District Court.

76 Declaration of Carolyn Jewel in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc No 18), Hepting v AT&T Corp, No 3:06-cv-00672-VRW (ND Cal, filed March 31, 2006), https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/JewelDecl.pdf, at 2-3, paras 8-10.

77 Declaration of Carolyn Jewel in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc No 18), Hepting v AT&T Corp, No 3:06-cv-00672-VRW (ND Cal, filed March 31, 2006), https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/JewelDecl.pdf, at 2-3, paras 8-10.

78 All quotations in this paragraph ibid.

79 Risen, James and Lichtblau, Eric, “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,” New York Times (12 16, 2005), 1, 22Google Scholar.

80 McCullagh, Declan and Broache, Anne, “Some Companies Helped the NSA, but Which?” CNET News.com (02 6, 2006)Google Scholar.

81 Cauley, Leslie and Diamond, John, “Telecoms Let NSA Spy on Calls,” USA Today (02 6, 2006), http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-05-nsa-telecoms_x.htm?POE=NEWISVAGoogle Scholar; “Our Story,” http://www.cnetnetworks.com/company/ (last accessed June 22, 2008).

82 “President's Radio Address,“ Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 41 (12 17, 2005)Google Scholar.

83 House, White, “Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence“ (12 19, 2005), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.htmlGoogle Scholar.

84 Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v Obama, 690 F(3d) 1089 (2012).

85 Sabbeth, , “Towards an Understanding,“ 1487Google Scholar; Sidhu, Dawinder S., “The Chilling Effect of Government Surveillance Programs on the Use of the Internet By Muslim-Americans,” University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class 7 (2007)Google Scholar.