4 ms·

> The judge, a conservative, ruled that the NSA must remove from its records data related to two Americans who filed suit to stop the program. Since Groklaw wa

> The judge, a conservative, ruled that the NSA must remove from its records data related to two Americans who filed suit to stop the program. Since Groklaw was KIA, can someone with a better understanding of the law explain if this applies to all Americans, or only those two who brought the suit?

Zikes 13y ago
Even if the ruling currently only applies to the two who brought the suit, surely it would serve as a precedent for future suits, even a possible class-action?
nwh 13y ago
I doubt they even have the means to do that.
direwolf 13y ago
EDIT: I looked at the opinion a little more closely, though I still haven't read it in its entirety. The judge's order only "(1) bars the Government from collecting, as part of the NSA’s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, any telephony metadata associated with their personal Verizon accounts and (2) requires the Government to destroy any such metadata in its possession that was collected through the bulk collection program." So by its terms, the judge's order only applies to these plaintiffs. However, if the opinion is upheld on appeal (see below), it seems unlikely that the NSA would continue the bulk program against anyone without individualized suspicion. If the opinion is upheld it would indeed be very easy for anyone else to sue and get a similar order. EDIT 2: Footnote 69 of the opinion confirms that it applies only to two plaintiffs, Larry Klayman and Charles Strange. Other plaintiffs did NOT get relief, apparently because they didn't prove they were telephone subscribers. -------------------------------- ORIGINAL COMMENT I have a law degree from Stanford, but I have not read the opinion in its entirety, so this is quite possibly premature. The judge ruled that the program is unconstitutional. Typically, the remedy for such a ruling would be for the judge to enjoin the program. That would prohibit the NSA from continuing surveillance against everyone, not just the two plaintiffs. However, the judge stayed his own ruling, meaning that he will not issue an injunction at this time. He did that to let the government appeal, which it will undoubtedly do. In other words, the ruling will not take effect unless and until it is upheld on appeal. The case was decided in the District of DC, so it will go to the DC Circuit, and (potentially) the Supreme Court. So it could be a long time before it has any effect at all. Regarding Zikes's comment, unfortunately a district court court opinion has little precedential value. It is not binding on other federal district courts, even within the district where it was decided. It may be persuasive, and it can certainly be cited, but it has no power to bind other federal courts. If it is upheld by the DC Circuit, it will carry a lot more weight.
declan 13y ago
The judge's opinion enjoins NSA phone metadata collection only as it relates to two plaintiffs: https://twitter.com/declanm/status/412697277363286016 https://twitter.com/declanm/status/412697277363286016 But legally and politically, especially if the ruling is upheld on appeal, it will become difficult for NSA to continue the program in its current form. The key is less the order than the legal reasoning that led the court to this result. Note Sec. 215 metadata collection was one of the more benign NSA programs that Snowden revealed. Bulk warrantless data collection on Americans ("incidental" of course) through fiber taps is a much bigger deal, IMHO.

Zikes 13y ago

Even if the ruling currently only applies to the two who brought the suit, surely it would serve as a precedent for future suits, even a possible class-action?

nwh 13y ago

I doubt they even have the means to do that.

direwolf 13y ago

EDIT: I looked at the opinion a little more closely, though I still haven't read it in its entirety. The judge's order only "(1) bars the Government from collecting, as part of the NSA’s Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, any telephony metadata associated with their personal Verizon accounts and (2) requires the Government to destroy any such metadata in its possession that was collected through the bulk collection program." So by its terms, the judge's order only applies to these plaintiffs. However, if the opinion is upheld on appeal (see below), it seems unlikely that the NSA would continue the bulk program against anyone without individualized suspicion. If the opinion is upheld it would indeed be very easy for anyone else to sue and get a similar order. EDIT 2: Footnote 69 of the opinion confirms that it applies only to two plaintiffs, Larry Klayman and Charles Strange. Other plaintiffs did NOT get relief, apparently because they didn't prove they were telephone subscribers. -------------------------------- ORIGINAL COMMENT I have a law degree from Stanford, but I have not read the opinion in its entirety, so this is quite possibly premature. The judge ruled that the program is unconstitutional. Typically, the remedy for such a ruling would be for the judge to enjoin the program. That would prohibit the NSA from continuing surveillance against everyone, not just the two plaintiffs. However, the judge stayed his own ruling, meaning that he will not issue an injunction at this time. He did that to let the government appeal, which it will undoubtedly do. In other words, the ruling will not take effect unless and until it is upheld on appeal. The case was decided in the District of DC, so it will go to the DC Circuit, and (potentially) the Supreme Court. So it could be a long time before it has any effect at all. Regarding Zikes's comment, unfortunately a district court court opinion has little precedential value. It is not binding on other federal district courts, even within the district where it was decided. It may be persuasive, and it can certainly be cited, but it has no power to bind other federal courts. If it is upheld by the DC Circuit, it will carry a lot more weight.

declan 13y ago

The judge's opinion enjoins NSA phone metadata collection only as it relates to two plaintiffs: https://twitter.com/declanm/status/412697277363286016 https://twitter.com/declanm/status/412697277363286016 But legally and politically, especially if the ruling is upheld on appeal, it will become difficult for NSA to continue the program in its current form. The key is less the order than the legal reasoning that led the court to this result. Note Sec. 215 metadata collection was one of the more benign NSA programs that Snowden revealed. Bulk warrantless data collection on Americans ("incidental" of course) through fiber taps is a much bigger deal, IMHO.