ACLU in Court Today: Government Can't Use Border Checks to Avoid the Bill of Rights
As alleged ‘Wikileak-er’ Pfc. Bradley Manning faces his , the government will face its own hearing today in a suit brought by the ACLU’s Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology and the ACLU of Massachusetts on behalf of a co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network, David House.
Late last year at Chicago's O’Hare airport, while returning from a vacation in Mexico, Mr. House was approached by two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who questioned him about his political beliefs and then . The government retained the devices for nearly seven weeks, copying and distributing the information on them to various federal agencies.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
Our complaint alleges that Mr. House was targeted solely on the basis of his First Amendment-protected association with the , a group of people and organizations raising funds for the legal defense of Private Bradley Manning, the soldier in military custody for allegedly providing federally restricted information to Wikileaks. Most notable of the leak was “,” a recording of a 2007 air attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad in which Iraqi civilians, including two Reuters employees, were killed. In the past year, Pfc. Manning has been subjected to gratuitously harsh treatment, including forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia.
Mr. House's laptop had confidential information key to the Support Network’s operations, including membership lists and strategy memos. This information, in addition to Mr. House’s personal finances and private email messages, is now in the hands of the federal government.
Our lawsuit charges the government with violating Mr. House's First Amendment right to freedom of association and Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The lawsuit seeks the return or destruction of any of Mr. House’s personal data still in government hands, as well as the disclosure of whether and to whom the data has been given.
In July, the government moved to dismiss our case by claiming that it has the blanket authority at the border to search and seize any person’s electronic device for as long as it wants, regardless of whether or not it has any suspicion whatsoever that a person is engaged in wrongdoing. This means the government’s authority goes totally unchecked – without requiring an articulable reason for a search, the government evades accountability for searches that violate our most fundamental constitutional protections.
Today, Judge Denise Casper in the District Court of Massachusetts will hear oral arguments on the government’s motion to dismiss. We will emphasize that the Bill of Rights does not completely evaporate when someone walks into an airport. As our response to the government’s motion reads:
The Constitution does not sanction such a sweeping claim of authority and courts are not so powerless that they are forbidden from scrutinizing the actions of border agents. […] The protection the [Constitution] affords to the privacy of associational affiliation cannot be overridden simply because a person is located at the border […].
Whether or not one agrees with the alleged actions of Pfc. Manning or the political opinions of Mr. House, the First Amendment’s freedom of association and the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches are crucial parts of our functioning democracy. The outcome of this case will affect not only Mr. House and the Support Network, but every American who travels overseas with their laptop, phone, and other devices.
Learn more about free speech: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.