Dueling judicial rulings on NSA Spying, and why they don't matter

Two federal judges reached opposite conclusions in separate cases challenging NSA spying. One was thoughtful; the other reflected much of what is wrong with our courts. Ultimately, however, neither will matter. The NSA’s dragnet continues unabated, and only Congress is poised to stop it.

Dueling judicial rulings on NSA Spying

Two weeks ago, US District Judge Richard Leon rightly described the NSA’s domestic spying operations as an “indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion.” He ruled in favor of a preliminary injunction against the programs, and stayed his ruling pending appeals that could go on for years.

Last Friday, Judge William Pauley opined that the NSA’s program does not violate the Fourth Amendment, prompting outrage among observers who understand either the NSA’s programs, or the role of courts, better than Judge Pauley. His decision reflects a disturbing judicial deference to executive spin, and undermines not only constitutional rights, but also judicial independence.

Why Judge Pauley’s ruling is silly: what congressional oversight?

We've known for some time of executive officials of lying to Congress about the NSA's domestic dragnet.

Yet Judge Pauley’s deferential opinion states that the NSAs domestic spying programs have been subjected to rigorous oversight by all three branches of government. That is simply and demonstrably false: multiple members of Congress have publicly complained that they were kept in the dark, and even those few who were exposed to the programs through their roles on oversight committees have posed tough questions, only to hear lies in response.

Several members of Congress have gone so far as to seek the prosecution of the Director of National Intelligence for deliberately misleading Congress about the scope, extent, and scale of NSA spying —which, even after the litany of revelations this year, remain unknown to the public, press, and Congress.

Among the members of Congress seeking to curtail NSA powers are the original authors of the PATRIOT Act themselves, who claim that they never intended their signature legislative achievement to be abused as it has been over the past decade. Yet Judge Pauley relied on congressional approval of the programs.

Why Judge Pauley’s ruling is silly: effectiveness? really?

Judge Pauley also predicated his decision on the supposed effectiveness of the NSA’s programs, which the president's own review board rejected a week before the judge released his poorly reasoned opinion. Even to whatever extent the programs were proven effective -- which they have not been -- that issue would be well outside the judicial scope of inquiry.

The Fourth Amendment requires searches and seizures to be justified with a specific warrant. In this context, the crucial jurisprudential question is whether or not NSA collection of telephony metadata counts as conducting a “search” or “seizure.”

Why Judge Pauley’s ruling is silly: what’s a search?

In 1979 -- over 30 years ago, well before the rise of anything even remotely resembling the Internet -- the Supreme Court held that capturing telephony metadata did not constitute a search when the government pursued a specific target, for whom authorities had a basis for individual suspicion, in the context of a particular investigation.

None of those limiting principles apply to cases challenging the NSA's spying programs, yet judge Pauley -- like the NSA -- preposterously presents Smith v Maryland as a basis for the legality of tapping the back end of the entire phone system and Internet.

At the end of the day, there could not be a more wanton violation of the Fourth Amendment than the NSA's domestic dragnet. Judge Leon, appointed by the president responsible for initiating the programs in the first place, understood that.

Stepping back

At stake, in addition to the vitality of privacy, and the opportunity for dissent in America, is the independence — and legitimacy — of our judiciary. Each of these ingredients are required for our democracy to be healthy. The fact that the NSA continues to wage a decade-long assault on the American people using our own tax dollars is a clear sign that it is not.

The dueling judicial rulings are ultimately a distraction, however, as Congress is poised to take action much more quickly to resolve the current controversy.

Having said that, despite the mounting controversy and escalating momentum in Congress for dramatic restrictions on NSA powers, whatever emerges from the current legislative process is likely to remain inadequate, as most agencies involved in domestic spying have yet to draw any sustained public or congressional attention.

Add comment

Log in to post comments


Don't we need to show that Judge Leon was Bush 2002 appointee and as such has a philosophy that says anything the current administration is doing is wrong, no matter what?
Who appointed these judges should not matter. Their job is to interpret the law and the constitution and then rule accordingly.
If we agree or disagree with either ruling has no bearing.
Name calling and and labeling is inappropriate.

I believe the NSA is violating our privacy rights.
I do feel though that politics should be taken out of this, and that only the law and the constitution be used to determine if this is legal.

As increasing infringements on our Email and online privacy rises, we see great demand for a solution. The threats against your personal Internet privacy is increasing everyday as "free" Email providers, hackers, NSA's PRISM program, and the amended US Patriot Act are just a few of a growing list that are compromising our freedoms. As we stand at a crossroads, it may appear hopeless to protect our God given rights to privacy but rest assured, there are real solutions to this serious problem!

www.americansrighttoprivacy.com offers 100% guaranteed online privacy because our servers are located in Switzerland, a safehaven for secure digital communications. As a law abiding citizen, you can be sure your digital data is safe from any agency, business, or anyone at all wanting to retrieve your information. Access to your online data communications by any authority requires an official warrant issued by a federal judge of Switzerland while most countries surrender your data without consent.

We are dedicated to protecting your online privacy while restoring your Fourth Amendment rights. Integrity is our highest priority and we will not succumb to those people wishing to abuse this undeniable right. What sets us apart is not only our unique services but a reseller opportunity for others to share these essential solutions to a vast marketplace. We are committed to helping people take control of their Internet privacy and rewarding them in the process. Don't wait to be a victim, regain your online Privacy.

What was glaring with Pauley's ruling are two things.....one, he used the fact that private corporations are using personal data as fodder for profits setting the stage for the government to pilfer as well. Never did he suggest that these private corporations are doing a greater harm to privacy than government. We know that these NSA programs are being run by hedge funds so the problem of private corporations committing felonies under the guise of government work is there as well. Snowden and recently released data show that these NSA spying deals involved much in industrial espionage and less in terror threat.

We need to show as well that Pauley is a Clinton appointee and as such has that neo-liberal philosophy that people are an end to a mean and that mean is profit. He does not recognize these privacy issues because as a neo-liberal looking at global tribunals for law knows civilian privacy does not exist!