FISC BR-13-02 ACLU Response to USG Classified.pdf (PDFy mirror)

0.22 MB·English

UNITED STATES wee
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COUNT:
WASHINGTON, B.C,

DY RE ORDERS OF TUS COCRT
INTERPRETING SECTION 215
OFTHE PATRION ACT

Dookst Ne. Mise. 13-02

MQVANTS’ RESPONSE TO THE SECOND SUBMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES
INRESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 24, 2013

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

he government has submited jroposed reasons fire he public rolease of an
Opinio ofthis Cour subjest to the mation for aves previouny filed Ly the ACT.L and the
Media Frecdoea and larmation Access Clinis.! While Movants have not scen the proposed
vedectins. thy respcttlly damit ths Response to tke govemsment's arsstion that eatsil
sy be withheld rum he publ under law enfincomenl exceplion ur heeause itis lassie,
Bacause the Opinivm is Sublet Lo the Fist Araendineut rig of acces, ional znay oly be
scdacod ifthe Couetindcpeedouny detenaines that he goweemment has tae the showizy:
scouted by Press Einenprise Ce». Superior Cones (Press Emerprite TB 478 US. 1 (1986).

PROCEDTIRAT. HISTORY
(Ge Septeinber 13,2013, this Court ieee the government telly any opinions of

he Patent

Ie FISC that avalvote the meanong, scape. and constitutionally af Soctioa 21S

‘Act. and daca not at issue in oe going Freedom of Information Act FOIA”) litigation ia the

"This Conet previously leund diat the Media Freedom aud lnformation Access Clinic
eMFIACY) licked sanding 1 assert o voneLlutional rigkt of access to the Setion 215 epinions,
Imre Seetion 215 Orders, Nn. Mss. #3z, 2013 WT, 5460064, a *4 (PISA Cr. Sept 13, 2013)
MELAC ha tiled @ motion tor ocousidscation, whch as ponting. Ser MEIAC Mor, for Recons.,
Fare Section 215 Orders, No, Mise 13-02 (FISA CL. Oct 11. 2013), tpl usa.gow!TaTGGad,
TUS, District Cour for the Southern District af New York oe areal wubjoet othe outs
publication rucess pussnanl 9 FISC Rule 62(2). The Coe lurter directed the govern
propose a timetable to complete dockssificcion rovicw af any such opinions. Ou Occber 4,
2013, the government identified one opinion of this Court the Opinion”) fig these tie
snd om Navembes #8, 2013, Bo government afonned he Cour hat “the Opinion should he

vlbeld io (ound a pubic

jon ofthe Opinio cacmot be provided.” On November 20,

2023, tc Court oxdeved the government to sabmeir "a detsiied explenation” ef hos it had reached

that conclusion
(On December 20, 2013, the yovertment expisined 1 the Court that “the Opinion is aot
‘only clasificd but also pertains te aa ongoing law onfeusemens investigation, and herofoxe is

protected by che fy enforcement im

igs

+ privilege," Atte same time, the govemmeot

upon teciow ard as a discrocionary master determined that i would Snot obj

ifthe Cn,
‘wert publish the Opinion in eedacted fort, the aevexpnient also provided the Count sith
proposed redautions. Cw Febmary 6, 2014, the goveramcnt disclosed thurs bad subsequently

“eyo sity Court scat tegarding the Government peepased roductons ta

Opinion” and
"upon furcher review determined that “eerlsinaitignal informatio inthe Opinion snot

ctnsified url the release af that uddltiemal information would not Seepacdive the ongoing

investigation." The government agai provided the Conn witha set of proposod redactions.

jhe Foheuary 6 filing provided the fest pubic notve tkat Court saithas held at least one ec
‘parte meeting. with the gevernmien tn issues Teling lo Movanis? motien fir access. Muvants
scogalze sat tac FISC generally eperates in emem-advessarial manner ara appreciate that if
classified lafonmacion was discessed, Movants’ court epy not have heen petted 16
Tsticipate im this mewing, Bit Mavants urge that "any ex pure oral comuminications wade to
tus car should be recorded and made wvatlable for appellate review.” Paflarel FH, 708 F.2d
HISL, 1154 (Sth Cir, 1983), Movants Surtaerroquest that reasonably segreesble postions et sich
rranscripis including any cecord of the Hauwayy 23.2014 mecting—-be plaved on use Courts
ARGUMENT
1. The First Amentdmert ight of Access Has No Law Enforcement Exceptloa.

Te asserting hat he Opinio “is postecte by Be Js enfoxcement investigatory
privilege and terctee must be withld wr released only in redacted foun, the yoveraneat

_nisappeehends both che nw enforcement privilege and the Fist Amondimens righ oF aceess, As

the vory eases cited hy the government lke clear, the law enforcement privilege fsa mite
purple shield shat can be used by paetes responding to discovery’ demands, orlen to produce
\oouaveats, and othsraualogons requests, In other words, iss comon law evidentiany

pulvilege. See dn ve Sealed Case, 856 F.2d 268 (D.C. Ci. 198K), Inve Hep 1 of kavestipation of

Cite of New Fark, 886 F.21 <8] (24 Cir. IDRS). This privilege is a yusied one, unter which the

“public ncezea in nundislonure nut be balanced ayanst the noed ola peti Hligant for
accesso the privileged inormation” in re Seale ase, 896 B24 a1 272

srs eo. as the goverument rates, that Congress “eoifed the privilege” as th bass of
FOIA xompsiog HA), Submission ofthe ILS. fa Resp othe Cauat’s Nov. 20, 21012 Onde
(iow, Pa"}at 8, hud Mirani eight acvenso Uke Opinion ues thom the Pest Amuenderer
mt FOIA. The govenments assertion thst the aw eatercementprviogs “appliels]
carogricallyo documents mil lasses of documents" kevsse rents wtely oo FO doctrine ad
is inapposite hte. See Cio, He. aL} (citing NI.RE. Robhinw Tire & Rubber Co, 487 US. 214
{19TR)(POIA rogues for witness satementa) Mandal: Dep't of huis 228 F.3d 76 DO

Cu, 2000) (FLA eequst for cemival seeords)

‘The yoverinent offers ru caselaw to suppoct te dota Ihara assertel law enforcement

pot docket, a3 is ronsistout withthe First Amendment right of access. See, ng., Tramsrint oF
Ex Parte Sesslon, ACLU v. Dep tof Depeuse, 10-4290 (ky, No. 140) (2d Cx, Apr. 17,2072).
privilege can exempt ontie docurcents—fet alone entry classes of docamients fron the
public's First Amendent right of coces. Nor could hey ds so: in variety af contexts, cours
nave found thar whe Ftst Amendmen: provides a sight of access lw goverueat records, oF

porucus thereof, even where the concoins tha mocivate te law entoxosment privil

prosont. In Vasguoe v. Cigy nf Nene York, 1Oace-6297 (TS), 2612 WL. 4377774 (SDN Y. Soph

22012), for exarpte, he enurt vetsidered w equstfoe aocees 29 che Uamseript ofthe ey parte,
in eerner testimony of a witmess in a state court muprder nal, Tho covrt balanved ee

prcauniption 0? aexess rte tae First Anuondmncal agnint the city's eancerns over wiacss ashy

and Fond that, in the absonce of “specific, ou-the-recnrd findings to justify scaling the cuize

<ducucsear]," the Fist Amendment uocess tight prevailed, fi. at *5: see also fave Apptication of

x so Certain Sealed Con Recor,

Thies Co. for: SF, Supp 2483, 91 (DDC

2004) nding a quahticd Fst Amonsiccat right oFacesss te redacted sear wav eecords
ven oval “the government has demonstrate a compellng nterest—peemting offecive law
endorermant—in keeping th idemlity informants seen: Fax Dep't of Ste Paice Wh
Pout, 386 B34 561, 579 (ach Cit, 20043 (holdig that, fo overoome ques Fest Amendment
vigh of acess clam, “ts nat soongh simply to assert Mf] gener principle” tht "a
cornaling govommaentl interest exists in progeting the niyriy of un ongoing lar
snfremen: invests.

fn su, tho goveentecnt cant short-cut he tindings sequized der the First
Aasendncat sig af acces sitiply by assem tht ths requested mnains fll under Ye

fercenveat privilege

TI The Covernment’s Propased Withioldings Must Survive Sect Serutiny.
nsread, the government nuns stisfy the corstuntional sandends aniculated in Pass

Frterprive Sr that case, the Supreme Court held that “[sJince u yualifed Fest Amendment
sight of access attaches 70 pretiminary hearings {ina California ste eximinal traf. the
proceedings cunmot be else unless specific, on the crord findings are made deusonstating that

lowure is essenial ts preserve higher waluos and is nary lalored o servo tha intersse” 47%

U.S. 1, 13 14419861 Gatoemal quetation ones nated). Jn Press Smrerarise Jf, se interest in
scorecy assertod was ths defendant's right co a far nal fre from prejatice by puslisty: Thongh

it found the governmens's utero git mats, the Court held al “this rik ef prejudice does not

ulnmatcally justify efiening public avcens to hearinys." kat |S. Instead the government was

ssquce to deruonseae onthe base oF spec ts, sat, "substantial probabil” thal he
dofendan’s ght» fair trie! would be rojuce by publicity that necroey would preven
second thal “easoasble atematives io closure cucmor adequately protect tbe defendane's iar
cil rpits." and hid, har unrest on acces is namowly led, Zl a 4 ting
Richman Mevspayers Loe. x Piginia #48 US, 555, SE LOW),

this is aboavy burden: in Press Eatorprtie Hho Supreme Cuust jcc senting

founded only on 2 “reasonable Tike hood” uC harms, insisting thet ster sexutiny was reguiel tn

vvercome the Psst Amendmcat right of acess and that such senufiny is satisSed only by 2
substantial probabiity of hato, fas see elbe Presley». Goong, 558 U.S, 208, 214 (2010),
ete, the government as meade no attempy co detours on the Basis af specie Fels

tha: she withholding of the requested Opinion survives he strict scrutiny’ sequined by Press-

terre 17. The goverament auygesty only that disclosure of information within Ike Opinion

could tip of Ove subject andor the subject's associa and that such a ipeofT “oul ional ke
‘opoing cmnimenisrorism invastigalion jn various wuyss” Cine. Be. al 3 (einphasis ldo’), Under

Prew Enterprise Hf, tbe povesnment mist demonsttare a substantia iikelinood thet disclosure

the Opininn would Gp alP the aubject aris assnciates. The ‘sonclasory seri” nfarad here is
a uient to eueet even the fin prunycol the Press-Enterprise [tel See Prerhey 1, Georgia,
556 U.S. a 245 (holding :bat government's assetion of @goucre risk” of prejulice dough

disclosure tothe poblie ig nat erough 1 justify excluding the pab'ic fom trial, for

sno
redactions it has propused, Gov. Br. al 3, are nastowly lailed.? More warrow options may well

xtoat ta which the Opinion may be released: not at all (ay af Nusember 18, 2013), aly if
sedacted {gs of December 20, 2013), and oaly a fess related (as of February 4, 2014)
Lor Nerfoid Cary AS7 BS, $96, 809 0.25 (1982) (quing Gommed Co. v. ePasguate, 449 US,
5368, 401 (1979) Powel, J. concuring). Instead, the Court must “indcpendendy examine the
Goverument’s reactions” 0 make ss that they “are no greator tun necessay.” Ute Slates
>. Mousnuoui 65 F. Apns BB1, BRS (Ah Cir. 2088). Thos, whem he government Asser al the
nat shoul public ony those portions of the Opinioa that te Exccutive deems appropriate
Gos. Be at 54. the govorementimpropcey asmaps to reste pie sc0295 ta cot sevands. J
ce Was Pose Co. M07 P28 33, 392 (th Ci, 1986) (A blind usceptance by the conte ofthe
government insistent on the need for secrecy, withoul ati o otters, thuut argamsenl, and
‘eithoulastalement of Yeas, sald imspenmisiby compromise the independence ofthe
pudielary and ope the don m possible abuse

Although samy measine of defen the gvernneal enay be approprist inthis

conse the jdiviry's “independent judement corsceraing redactions” ttust also he sesreived.

Maussaoi, 65 F. App'v uf 888. Indeed, even ifthe govenumeut's interest in protec portions

‘af the Opinion is “a quattying campelling and overriding” ane, the Fist A mendmeat “requitels)
1 jucciad inquiry int the begitimacy of the asserted... inlenest, ata specific edings, scaled iP
necessary, chit the bar. that wuld ensue” iLike redactions were not upheld. Unied Seater

». Resin, 487 F. Supp, 20.703, 717 (E.D. Va, 2007) (enuphasis aod) The oveewtieiming pubic

interest understanding this Cour’s analysis and apication ofthe tion's sure

ce laws

unnderscores this requirement. Movants therefore

uege the Cour wo “este ie en redactions [if
any], support by specie Findings, aller a cael review’ of al clans for and against aces.”

Unite States » Anaacten, 44 Ed 1A, 47 Od Ci. 1995).
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing tsasens aud ts ressous given in BMavants'provions filings, Movasts

respocrilly coquest tht this Curt unscal the Opinion, Movants ee

Chat he Opinion be

released an soon as posible and with only thas edactoas essential to protect information thet

the Court determines, aay independent review, to auzant continued scaling, Muvants ab urge

‘he Cour to memorialize its conclusions sth spccitie findings en the ecard.

Datee: Fobresey 18, 2014 Respecllly subrnitted,
SEAley Abdo

David A, Setulz Ales Abdo

Temathian Manes Brett Maa Rauf

Media Feovdorn and Tnlormaticn Access Clinic Patrick Tonmey

Yale Law Schoo!” Jaavee Jatier

P.O. Box 208215 ‘American Civil Libertios unien Foundstion

Now Hoven, CT 06829, 125 Broad Stree. 18 Flsor

Phone: [phone] New York, NY Too

asc: (212) RS0-6299 Phone: [phone]

desbulr@skslaw com Fax: [phone]

snlide@@aclaore

Arthur B. Spitzer
‘Armericat Civil Libestes Usion of the
Nation's Copitl

430] Conucctient Avenue, NIW., Suite 464
Washinglum, DC 20008,

Phone: [phone]

Tox: [phone]

sawpitzerBaclu-nea.org

“This Response Sas Boon pscpeued withthe assistance af Vole Law Sehoal students Patrick,
Passion “14, Anjali Mugs ‘14, Max Mishkin ‘14, and Brisuna van Kan.“IS, This Response does
‘et purport ta present the insttuticnal views of Yale Law Selioo}, if ny
CERTIFICATE. OF SERVICE
1, Alex Abdo, cetty that on cis da, February 18, 2014, a copy af he foregaing brief
‘was served on the following pereous by the methods iodicuted:
Homa and (08 ovemight delivers

Christine Gunning
Titigation Security Geanp

US. Dopamront of Justis

2 Camslitatian Square

14S N Sutcet, NE.

Suite 2W-115

Washingtor. DE 20830

Emil: Christine £ Gomping@nsdoi 20%

Ay LPS oveouate deligery

The P. Carlin
2, Bradford Wiegroamn
Teshina Gauhar

seleey M. Sit

INichoias J. Pavtessoa

US. Tpariment of Funice
National Seoutity Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.
Washington, DC H1530
Phone: [phone]

ji tles abd
les Aid