ACLU Joins Professor’s Lawsuit Against FBI for Baseless Arrest and Illegal Spying
Chinese-American Professor’s Case Challenges Warrantless Surveillance and Malicious Prosecution
PHILADELPHIA — The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it is representing Xiaoxing Xi, a Chinese-American physics professor at Temple University who is suing the government over its dismissed prosecution of him for supposedly sharing sensitive technology with scientists in China. The ACLU and the law firm Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin LLP filed an amended complaint today in federal district court. The complaint challenges the government’s baseless arrest and surveillance methods as well as its discriminatory targeting of Chinese-American scientists like Xi.
In May 2015, FBI agents came into Xi’s house with guns drawn and led him away in handcuffs in front of his wife and daughters. The government accused Xi of sharing information about a superconductor device known as a “pocket heater,” relying on email exchanges between Xi and scientific colleagues in China that the FBI had obtained. The government claimed that those communications violated a legal agreement Xi had signed with the company that owned the pocket heater in which he had agreed not to share the technology.
The intercepted emails, however, were not about the pocket heater, but concerned a different kind of superconductor technology that has been public for years. In September 2015, prosecutors were forced to drop the charges. But the damage to Xi and his family was already significant. As a result of the charges, Xi was placed on administrative leave, suspended from his position as the interim chair of the Temple Physics Department, denied access to his lab and the graduate students working under his supervision, and had to pay substantial legal fees to defend himself.
The government spied on Xi using orders issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is intended for spying on foreign agents. As the complaint alleges, he was also spied on without any court order under Section 702 of FISA and Executive Order 12333, both of which are used by the government to conduct warrantless surveillance of international communications, including those of Americans.
The government has engaged in extensive warrantless surveillance of Chinese universities and scientific research centers. It has siphoned communications off servers, computers, and major internet networks that connect many of China’s most prestigious academic institutions. Both the NSA and FBI routinely store the emails and phone calls they intercept in government databases for years, where they can be later searched by analysts and agents who are investigating Americans. FBI agents conduct so-called “backdoor searches” on Americans so often that the government has referred to one of these massive databases as the “.”
“The dangers of giving the government such sweeping surveillance powers are real and unmistakable. This case is a glaring example of an innocent American’s privacy rights being grossly violated, with disastrous consequences for Professor Xi and his family,” said ACLU attorney Patrick Toomey. “The government needs to stop spying on Americans without a warrant and start following the Constitution.”
Xi’s case is one of three espionage-related prosecutions of Chinese-American scientists in a 10-month period in which the government abandoned the case before trial. The others include the dismissal of charges against Sherry Chen, a hydrologist with the U.S. National Weather Service in Ohio in March 2015, and Guoqing Cao and Shuyu Li, senior biologists at Eli Lilly & Company in December 2014.
“The FBI’s conduct in this case and others suggests that the government has been targeting Chinese-Americans because of their race or ethnicity,” said Toomey. “The Constitution demands a remedy when the government runs roughshod over the rights of innocent citizens.”
In May 2017, Xi filed a lawsuit against the lead FBI agent in the case, Andrew Haugen, and other agents, alleging that they made knowingly or recklessly false statements in support of the investigation and prosecution. Xi’s wife and oldest daughter later joined the case. The lawsuit asks the court to award damages and to declare that the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. It also asks the court to order the government to return or delete any of the Xis’ communications that it obtained during the investigation.
Today’s amended complaint is here:
/legal-document/xi-v-haugen-second-amended-complaint
National Security
Xi v. United States – Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance
National Security
Xi v. United States – Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.