Our Privacy is on the Clock
This piece originally appeared in .
Important issues sometimes divide our nation, but one area where most of us share common ground surrounds is the belief that warrantless secret spying on Americans is unjust.
Soon, the Senate is scheduled to vote on the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020, a bill that would extend provisions of the Patriot Act that expired in March. These provisions are currently not consistent with Americans' fundamental rights. However, if Congress chooses to reauthorize them, at a minimum, they should be accompanied by meaningful reforms to address the torrent of surveillance abuses that have come to light over the past year. The legislation in its current form fails to accomplish this basic task, and must be amended.
In 2015, Congress passed the in a bipartisan effort to address revelations that the National Security Agency had abused provisions of the Patriot Act to obtain the personal information of virtually every American. The stated goal of the bill was to end bulk and large-scale, indiscriminate collection under the Patriot Act, require transparency to prevent future surveillance abuses, and reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorizes surveillance of agents of a foreign power in the United States.
پ that were in the original version of the USA Freedom Act – sponsored by over 150 members of Congress – were omitted in the final version of the bill and it has become clear since the bill’s enactment that the USA Freedom Act did not succeed in limiting unwarranted surveillance under the Patriot Act and other intelligence laws.
For example, Section 215 of the Patriot Act continues to be used to collect vast amounts of Americans’ sensitive information under a standard far more permissive than a warrant – with the government refusing to disclose the types of records it believes it can collect under the authority. In addition, last year, a report from the Justice Department’s Inspector General revealed unlawful surveillance of Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page.
Subsequent reports by the Inspector General have shown that the errors in the Page case were not simply one-offs, but rather indicative of systemic deficiencies. For example, a recent audit by the Inspector General of 25 intelligence surveillance applications found “apparent errors or inadequately supported facts” in every single one. It is now abundantly clear that we must dramatically reform both the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and our intelligence laws to safeguard Americans’ rights.
Fortunately, it’s not too late for Congress to right the ship. Anticipated proposed amendments proposed to the legislation currently under consideration offer a common-sense, privacy-protecting solution.
Adversarial process is a cornerstone of our legal system. Americans expect that when the government makes a claim in a court of law that they aren’t the only voice heard in the courtroom. Unfortunately, that is precisely what happens in our intelligence courts. An amendment anticipated by Senators Leahy and Lee would help to tackle this problem head-on by encouraging the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to appoint a “friend-of-the-court” to provide privacy and civil liberties expertise in cases raising pronounced constitutional concerns.
In addition to this, an amendment anticipated by Sens. (D-Ore.) and (R-Mont.) would take steps to prevent the Patriot Act from being used to further trample Fourth Amendment rights by limiting collection of internet and search history. Section 215 of the Patriot Act was never intended to give the government carte blanche to engage in the type of collection that typically requires a probable cause warrant under the Fourth Amendment. Under the proposed amendment, the FBI would still be able to get internet search and browsing information in foreign intelligence cases – they would just need to show probable cause like they do in the criminal context.
Finally, Sen. ’s (R-Ky.) has said that he also intends to introduce an amendment that will provide further protections for individuals in the US who are ensnared in the FISA process – something that is sorely needed.
There’s much more that needs to be done to fix our nation’s broken surveillance system beyond what’s accomplished in these amendments. Among other things, protections are needed to ensure that First Amendment activity is not a basis for surveillance, that the government purges data that is not foreign intelligence, and that intelligence agencies comply with their constitutional obligation to fully notify individuals when information obtained as a result of intelligence surveillance is used against them.
We all want to keep Americans safe. And we can ensure that safety while also making our government accountable to its citizens’ representatives. Undertaking these reforms will help give the American people the transparency and due process protections they are guaranteed under the Constitution.
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 -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.