ACLU vs NSA: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
(34 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Welcome to the Berkman Center Wiki for the ACLU vs. NSA wiretapping appeal | Welcome to the Berkman Center Wiki for the ''ACLU vs. NSA'' wiretapping appeal discussion at HLS. | ||
'''Co-Sponsored by the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/ Berkman Center for Internet & Society] and OPIA/[http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/fellowships/heyman/description.php Heyman Fellowship Program]''' | |||
== <center>'''ACLU v. NSA: Lunch Discussion'''</center> == | |||
Join Harvard Law Professor [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/facdir.php?id=534 Mark Tushnet]; HLS Lecturer James Baker, a national security and FISA expert and currently a Fellow at the Institute of Politics; Ann Beeson, ACLU Associate Legal Director; and [http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/facdir.php?id=694 HLS Lecturer James Flug] for a discussion of last week's Sixth Circuit oral arguments in the ''ACLU v NSA'' wiretapping case. Listen to the audio of the oral arguments (1 hour, 5 minutes) on your own ahead of time (see link below) and then come to the dicussion at 12:15, or come at 11:15 and listen together immediately before the discussion. | |||
''Pizza and refreshments will be served''. | |||
'''When:''' Wednesday, February 7, 2007, 11:15 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. | |||
'''Where:''' Room 332, [http://www.law.harvard.edu/about/images/hlsmap.gif Pound Hall], Harvard Law School | |||
== <center>'''ACLU v. NSA: Background'''</center> == | |||
In January 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union (âACLUâ) filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan against the National Security Agency (âNSAâ), alleging that the NSAâs warrantless âTerrorist Surveillance Programâ (âTSPâ) and alleged call detail database are unconstitutional and in violation of federal law. The government argued both that plaintiff lacked standing and that the case was barred by state secrets privilege. | |||
On August 17, 2006, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor held that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient injury under Article III to have standing and that the NSAâs practice of warrantless surveillance was both unconstitutional and in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (âFISAâ) and ordered the program halted immediately. Judge Taylor refrained from ruling on the issue of the alleged call detail database, citing state secrets privilege. Defendants immediately appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed. Judge Taylor stayed the injunction pending appeal. | |||
Oral argument was held before a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 31, 2007. The panel consisted of Judges Alice Batchelder, Ronald Gilman, and Julia Smith Gibbons. Ann Beeson represented the ACLU and Deputy Solicitor General Greg Garre represented the government. Central to the oral argument was the issue of whether plaintiffs, a group of scholars, journalists and attorneys who could not demonstrate that they were targets of surveillance, have standing to challenge the NSA. | |||
===Oral Argument Audio=== | |||
''Listen to the argument'' by clicking [http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/06_2095/06_2095.mp3 here] (or right-click to save) or via [http://blog.aclu.org/index.php?/archives/133-Hallowed-Halls.html the ACLU blog] | |||
===Legal Documents=== | |||
*[http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/28118lgl20061013.html Government Appeal Brief] | |||
*[http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/27378lgl20061113.html ACLU Appeal Brief] | |||
*[http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/28119lgl20061204.html Government Reply Brief] | |||
*[http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/28114lgl20061218.html ACLU Reply Brief] | |||
*[http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/DOJ%20on%20NSA%20mootness.pdf Goverment's Supplemental Submission on the Subject of Mootness] | |||
*[http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/28148lgl20070126.html ACLU's Response to the Government's Supplemental Submission on the Subject of Mootness] | |||
*[http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf District Court Opinion by Judge Taylor] | |||
*[http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/26582res20060828.html Additional documents] from the trial and appellate proceedings, including Amicus Briefs | |||
===Additional Resources=== | |||
*[http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html ACLU pages on the case] | |||
*[http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/nsa_myth_v_reality.pdf#search=%22terrorism%20surveillance%20program%22 NSA Public Information Statement on the TSP] | |||
=== Related Articles by HLS Faculty === | |||
[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/16/bush_stomps_on_fourth_amendment/ ''Bush Stomps On Fourth Amendment''], Boston Globe Op-ed by Laurence H. Tribe | |||
[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/30/the_case_for_surveillance/ ''The Case for Surveillance''], Boston Globe Op-ed by Charles Fried | |||
=== Other Related Articles === | |||
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/why-the-nsa-surveillance-_b_13522.html ''Why the NSA Surveillance Program is Unlawful''], Geoffrey R. Stone, Professor of Law at University of Chicago Law School | |||
'''Special Thanks''' to [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/clinical Berkman Center Clinical Program] students Chris Walsh and Amanda Devereux for preparing these background materials and creating the event wiki. |
Latest revision as of 15:01, 6 February 2007
Welcome to the Berkman Center Wiki for the ACLU vs. NSA wiretapping appeal discussion at HLS.
Co-Sponsored by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and OPIA/Heyman Fellowship Program
ACLU v. NSA: Lunch Discussion
Join Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet; HLS Lecturer James Baker, a national security and FISA expert and currently a Fellow at the Institute of Politics; Ann Beeson, ACLU Associate Legal Director; and HLS Lecturer James Flug for a discussion of last week's Sixth Circuit oral arguments in the ACLU v NSA wiretapping case. Listen to the audio of the oral arguments (1 hour, 5 minutes) on your own ahead of time (see link below) and then come to the dicussion at 12:15, or come at 11:15 and listen together immediately before the discussion.
Pizza and refreshments will be served.
When: Wednesday, February 7, 2007, 11:15 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.
Where: Room 332, Pound Hall, Harvard Law School
ACLU v. NSA: Background
In January 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union (âACLUâ) filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan against the National Security Agency (âNSAâ), alleging that the NSAâs warrantless âTerrorist Surveillance Programâ (âTSPâ) and alleged call detail database are unconstitutional and in violation of federal law. The government argued both that plaintiff lacked standing and that the case was barred by state secrets privilege.
On August 17, 2006, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor held that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient injury under Article III to have standing and that the NSAâs practice of warrantless surveillance was both unconstitutional and in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (âFISAâ) and ordered the program halted immediately. Judge Taylor refrained from ruling on the issue of the alleged call detail database, citing state secrets privilege. Defendants immediately appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed. Judge Taylor stayed the injunction pending appeal.
Oral argument was held before a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 31, 2007. The panel consisted of Judges Alice Batchelder, Ronald Gilman, and Julia Smith Gibbons. Ann Beeson represented the ACLU and Deputy Solicitor General Greg Garre represented the government. Central to the oral argument was the issue of whether plaintiffs, a group of scholars, journalists and attorneys who could not demonstrate that they were targets of surveillance, have standing to challenge the NSA.
Oral Argument Audio
Listen to the argument by clicking here (or right-click to save) or via the ACLU blog
Legal Documents
- Government Appeal Brief
- ACLU Appeal Brief
- Government Reply Brief
- ACLU Reply Brief
- Goverment's Supplemental Submission on the Subject of Mootness
- ACLU's Response to the Government's Supplemental Submission on the Subject of Mootness
- District Court Opinion by Judge Taylor
- Additional documents from the trial and appellate proceedings, including Amicus Briefs
Additional Resources
Related Articles by HLS Faculty
Bush Stomps On Fourth Amendment, Boston Globe Op-ed by Laurence H. Tribe
The Case for Surveillance, Boston Globe Op-ed by Charles Fried
Other Related Articles
Why the NSA Surveillance Program is Unlawful, Geoffrey R. Stone, Professor of Law at University of Chicago Law School
Special Thanks to Berkman Center Clinical Program students Chris Walsh and Amanda Devereux for preparing these background materials and creating the event wiki.