Detroit Judge Finds Patriot Act Provision Threatens Free Speech Rights
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
DETROIT - The
American Civil Liberties Union today welcomed a federal court ruling that the
Patriot Act threatens the free speech and religious freedom rights of groups who
have reason to believe they are targeted by the law.
"Today's
ruling confirms what we have said all along - that our clients are suffering
concrete harm as a result of the Patriot Act," said ACLU Associate Legal
Director Ann Beeson.
At issue in the case was the ACLU's
challenge to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, passed in October 2001, which
radically expanded the FBI's power to demand records and personal belongings of
innocent people living in the United States, and gagged recipients from
disclosing the demands to anyone. The national ACLU and the ACLU of
Michigan filed the case in July 2003 on behalf of advocacy and community groups
from across the country whose members and clients believed they were the targets
of investigations because of their ethnicity, religion and political
associations.
In her ruling issued on Monday, Judge Denise Page
Hood rejected the government's motion to dismiss the case and granted the ACLU
30 days to decide whether to file an amended complaint in light of changes to
the law. She also noted that Section 215 was amended by Congress "while the
matter was under advisement," and therefore her ruling does not apply to the
current, reauthorized version of the Patriot Act.
In its
reauthorization of the Patriot Act earlier this year, Congress addressed some of
the issues raised in the ACLU's lawsuit.
"Although the
Patriot Act provision still fails to comply with the Constitution, we are
pleased that our legal challenge - combined with our advocacy in Congress -
fixed some of the defects in the law," Beeson said.
For instance, as a result of reforms, the law now makes explicit that any
business that receives an order for records of employees or customers has a
right to consult with a lawyer. The orders continue to gag recipients
automatically. Businesses may now challenge the gag orders, but challenges
would be difficult if not impossible because judges must defer to the FBI’s view
that secrecy is necessary.
The ACLU is fighting a
similar gag provision in another case, Doe v. Gonzales, which seeks to strike
down the expanded National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act.
That case is currently before the Southern District of New York. For more
information, go to www.aclu.org/nsl
The ACLU is
reviewing the Detroit court ruling in light of changes to the law; attorneys
said they are conferring with their clients about next steps in the case. The
decision is online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/general/26989lgl20061002.html. For more information on the case, go to www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/16821res20030730.html.
For more information on the Patriot Act
reauthorization, go to www.reformthepatriotact.org