Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman | AP Photo Judge eager to re-enter NSA surveillance fight

Warning that the constitutional rights of tens of millions of Americans are being violated, a federal judge said Wednesday that he's eager to expedite a lawsuit seeking to shut down the National Security Agency's controversial program to collect data on large volumes of U.S. telephone calls.

During an hourlong hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, Judge Richard Leon repeatedly urged the conservative lawyer who brought the suit to take steps to allow the case to move forward quickly by asking a federal appeals court to formally relinquish control over an appeal in the case.

Leon noted that the so-called bulk collection program is set to shut down on November 29 as part of a transition to a new system where queries will be sent to telephone companies rather than to a central database stored at the NSA.

"The clock is running and there isn't much time between now and November 29," Leon told conservative gadfly Larry Klayman. "This court believes there are millions and millions of Americans whose constitutional rights have been and are being violated, but the window...for action is very small....It's time to move."

Leon also told Justice Department lawyers that he was intent on moving the case forward and would not countenance any stalling aimed at preventing him from acting in the case before the program, aimed at aiding terrorism investigations, ends.

In November 2013, Leon ruled that the program involved a search and seizure that was likely unconstitutional and "almost Orwellian" in its scope. He issued an injunction against the NSA effort, but put that ban on hold so the government could appeal.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the preliminary injunction on the grounds that Klayman and his fellow plaintiffs had not made a sufficient showing that data on their phone calls was gathered by the NSA program. However, two of the three appellate judges said Klayman's suit could proceed, allowing him an opportunity to try to gather proof that the plaintiffs were directly affected by the surveillance.

Leon made clear Wednesday that his conclusion that the program was unconstitutional has not changed. "I don't have to hear new arguments on the constitutional issue," the judge said. "It has been written. It has been written."

At one point during Wednesday's hearing, the judge noted that the D.C. Circuit decision did not address the central legal issue of whether the NSA program was unconstitutional. "I don't think the D.C. Circuit ruled on the merits," said Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

However, at another juncture, the judge suggested that the appeals judges did not see things his way on the issue. "They don't agree with me. It remains to be seen if anyone agrees with me," Leon said.

"The American people agree with you," Klayman chimed in.

Justice Department lawyer Rodney Patton noted that the wind-down of the NSA program follows Congress's passage in June of the USA Freedom Act, which ends the phone metadata collection program but also extended for about six months the legal authority under which the g was set up.

"The political branches came to a compromise," Patton said. "This court should consider what the political branches decided to do.....and not consider the extraordinary remedy of [a new] injunction."

After Patton spoke, Leon leaned in and pointed for emphasis as he warned against foot-dragging by the government. "I am not going to allow, if I can help it, any misimpression or impression that the government is trying to run out the clock here," the judge said. "I'm not going to tolerate that."

One complication in the case at the moment is that while the appeals court issued its opinion--or rather a brief ruling and three separate opinions--last week, it has not yet formally ended the appeal. Leon repeatedly urged Klayman to ask the D.C. Circuit to hand down the official mandate immediately. Getting the mandate issued would remove questions about Leon's ability to proceed with the lawsuit.

While insisting that he was not coaching Klayman about how to pursue the case, the judge encouraged Klayman to resolve some issues raised by the appeals court by adding someone to the case who used a Verizon business subsidiary known back in 2013 to be providing data to the NSA under the program. Klayman and the other plaintiffs are customers of Verizon Wireless, which is technically a different company.

Klayman said Wednesday that the distinction was irrelevant, particularly since a document released to the New York Times last month in response to a Freedom of Information Act request indicated that Verizon Wireless was also involved in the NSA effort. The conservative lawyer also accused government lawyer James Gilligan of having lied about Verizon Wireless' involvement earlier in the case, but the comments Klayman pointed to were of a Gilligan saying there was "no evidence" that the wireless carrier took part--apparently meaning no evidence in the court record at that point.

Patton dismissed Klayman's assertion that Gilligan lied. "It's factually wrong. It's legally wrong," Patton said.

Leon cautioned that it was a serious matter to accuse a lawyer of lying in court. "That's a big allegation. Be careful with the L word, throwing the L word around in this room," the judge said. He added that he was confident in the integrity of Gilligan, who was not in court Wednesday.

In May, the New York-based 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA phone metadata program was unlawful because the Patriot Act provision used to authorize it did not in fact provide authority for bulk collection of records largely unrelated to terrorism. The appeals court heard a new round of oral arguments on that case Wednesday, focusing on the impact the law passed in June will have on the litigation.

Another challenge to the program is pending in the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, but that case is on hold pending a ruling by the 2nd Circuit.