Skip to content
Subscribe

Declassified Docs Show Rejected Suit Against NSA Data Collection

Declassified Docs Show Rejected Suit Against NSA Data Collection
Published:

A phone service provider filed a lawsuit -- which was subsequently rejected -- against NSA data collection, according to a report declassified on Friday. The company's name is redacted in the documents, but the Washington Post article revealed that it was the popular mobile service provider Verizon.

The particular issue at stake was the NSA requiring the company to relinquish phone records as part of the government agency's metadata collection. The records collected include phone numbers dialed, call times, and call durations, but not the content of calls.

The documents report that it was in January that the suit was filed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It was rejected in March.Verizon's lawsuit was

filed after Federal District Court Judge Richard J. Leon ordered the government to stop collecting data on a pair of plaintiffs in a particular case. Leon's order has generally been interpreted as an indication that the data collection may eventually be ruled unconstitutional.

Issuing the March ruling was Federal District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, who also sits on the FISC. She justified her ruling through a 1979 Supreme Court case, saying that Americans can have little expectation of privacy when dialing phone numbers. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) disputes this interpretation of the case, Smith v. Maryland, which involved a single individual over a period of several days. The NSA, the ACLU points out, "collects hundreds of millions of Americans' phone records in bulk, indefinitely."

Collyer also ruled that Judge Leon's concerns about the duration of time the government holds information is "irrelevant in determining whether a Fourth Amendment search has occurred."

Collyer was a recent figure in a lawsuit filed by the family of Anwar al-Awlaki, the suspected American-born terrorist extra-judicially killed in 2011 by a drone in Yemen. She upheld the government's request to dismiss the motion on the grounds that individuals in the government cannot be held legally liable.

The rejected lawsuit marked the first known time a phone company formally challenged or questioned the constitutionality of the metadata collection. Last year, it was reported that no company had actively resisted the NSA's program.

The papers also show that the company wanted the court to "vacate, modify, or reaffirm" its past decisions, a sign that the company was primarily looking to see that it was abiding by the established law. Still, the court ultimately declined to even listen to the case.

There still remain other outstanding lawsuits against the NSA and Verizon and the others may still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Declassified Docs Show Rejected Suit Against NSA Data Collection

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us