Four commercial airplanes are hijacked in a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda on the U.S.

LEARN MORE:
A Call to Courage: Reclaiming Our Liberties Ten Years After 9/11

Passed amid the climate of fear and uncertainty that followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the USA Patriot Act fundamentally altered the relationship Americans share with their government by expanding the government's authority to secretly search private records and monitor communications, often without any evidence of wrongdoing.

LEARN MORE:
USA PATRIOT Act
Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act
Read the USA PATRIOT Act

The media reported that the government is working on a system called CAPPS II, which would pull together a wide array of government and commercial information on each individual who flies, in order to assign them a ranking of their supposed risk to aviation. In July 2004, DHS announced that CAPPS II was being dismantled. The following month, it was replaced by a very similar though somewhat scaled back program called 'Secure Flight' (which was scaled back further in the following years until it consisted basically of a still-problematic watch list check).

LEARN MORE:
ACLU Feature on CAPPS II
The Seven Problems With CAPPS II

The National Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) was established in July 2002 as regional terrorism task forces continued to expand. According to the FBI, over 600 state, local and federal agencies participate in JTTFs across the country, including the U.S. military and, at one point at least, CIA. There are regional JTTFs in 106 cities nationwide, employing approximately 4,400 members - four times larger than before 9/11. Freedom of Information Act requests filed by ACLU affiliates around the country in 2004, 2005, and 2006 revealed that JTTFs have been collecting information about peaceful political activity having nothing to do with terrorism.

LEARN MORE:
Spy Files: Joint Terrorism Task Force
No Real Threat: The Pentagon's Secret Database on Peaceful Protest
Congressional Research Service Report: The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations

A highly secretive component of the DOD, the Counterintelligence Field Activity Agency (CIFA), began Threat and Local Observation Notices (TALON), a program to track potential terrorist threats to Department personnel or property within the United States. TALON reports were designed to permit civilians and military personnel to report on suspicious activity near defense installations. Not surprisingly, the DOD soon strayed from this limited mission and TALON became a repository for information about peaceful anti-war protesters and others, even when the 'threat' occurred far from any military installation, and even 'threats' deemed non-credible were never removed from the database. CIFA was disbanded in 2008, but a new office at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) was opened to assume CIFA's 'resources and responsibilities.'

LEARN MORE:
No Real Threat: The Pentagon's Secret Database on Peaceful Protest
Documents Shed New Light on Pentagon Surveillance of Peace Activists

The Otter amendment to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, passed the House with bipartisan support with a vote of 309-118, after a significant and successful ACLU lobby effort. The amendment prohibited any funds from being used to carry out a 'sneak and peek' search under the Patriot Act. The underlying appropriations bill ultimately never became law.

LEARN MORE:
ACLU Letter to Congress Urging Support of the Freedom To Read Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations Bill of 2004 (2003)
Congress Takes Aim At USA PATRIOT; ACLU Calls Move Giant Win for Civil Liberties (2003)

In an effort to shed light on the way in which the FBI was implementing and using expanded spying authorities under the Patriot Act, the ACLU filed two requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking records relating to the Justice Department's implementation and use of the new surveillance powers. After a two year legal battle and much stonewalling from the government, the ACLU entered into a settlement agreement with the Justice Department that resulted in the disclosure of records that confirmed that the new law grossly eroded civil liberties.

The released documents included a copy of the procedural rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC); information about 'Section 215,' which authorizes the government to obtain 'any tangible thing' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the 'thing' pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities; and information about the National Security Letter (NSL) provision of the Patriot Act, which dramatically expanded the ability obtain personal customer information from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies without prior court approval. The ACLU later filed three more requests for more information about the government's use of NSLs, which have resulted in the disclosure of hundreds of pages, including key documents, about the use of NSLs.

LEARN MORE:
PATRIOT FOIA
USA PATRIOT Act
What Is Section 215?
National Security Letters

The Patriot Act dramatically expanded the FBI's authority to use 'National Security Letters' (NSLs) to demand personal customer information from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies without prior court approval. Since 2004, the ACLU has filed three lawsuits challenging NSLs in court:
• Doe v. Holder, which resulted in numerous court rulings finding parts of the NSL statute unconstitutional, was settled in August 2010. As a result of the case, the 'John Doe' client, Nicholas Merrill, was finally able to publicly identify himself and his former company as the plaintiffs in the case.
• Library Connection v. Gonzales, involved an NSL served on a consortium of libraries in Connecticut. In September 2006, a federal district court ruled that the gag order on the librarians violated the First Amendment and the government ultimately withdrew both the gag order and its demand for records.
•Internet Archive v. Mukasey, involved an NSL served on a digital library. In April 2008, the FBI withdrew the NSL and the gag order a part of the settlement of a legal challenge brought by the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

LEARN MORE:
National Security Letters
USA PATRIOT Act

A New York Times exposé revealed a 2002 Bush order that authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on international phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant. Representing a major shift in U.S. intelligence-gathering practices, the illegal spying program was operated without any independent review or judicial oversight.

LEARN MORE:
NSA Spying on Americans Is Illegal (2005)
ACLU v. NSA: The Challenge to Illegal Spying
New York Times: Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts (Dec. 16, 2005)

The ACLU filed the first legal challenge to the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, charging the government's monitoring of phone calls and emails of people inside the United States without a warrant was unconstitutional. Although a lower court ruled that the program violated the Constitution, the case was ultimately dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs -scholars, journalists, and national nonprofit organizations whose work required them to engage in international communications - had no standing to sue because they couldn't show with certainty that they had been wiretapped.

LEARN MORE:
ACLU v. NSA: The Challenge to Illegal Spying
NSA Spying on Americans Is Illegal (2005)

A day before 16 provisions of the Patriot Act were set to expire, President Bush signs a reauthorization into law. While the reauthorization made many parts of the law permanent, it left three sections subject to further sunsets.

LEARN MORE:
USA PATRIOT Act

The Department of Justice Inspector General released audits of the FBI's use of Section 215 of the Patriot Act and of National Security Letters (NSLs). The reports revealed abuse of both authorities, and a complete vacuum of effective accountability and oversight within the FBI. For example, the NSL report revealed that between 2003 and 2005, the FBI had substantially underreported its use of this authority to Congress, and had actually made 143,074 requests for information - over half of which concerned U.S. persons, many of whom were two or three times removed from subjects of its investigations.

LEARN MORE:
ACLU Analysis and Recommendations: Justice Department OIG Report on Misuse of National Security Letters (2007)
ACLU Calls for Repeal of Expanded Patriot Act Powers in Response to Government Report on Abuses (2007)
What Is Section 215?
National Security Letters
USA PATRIOT Act

In response to the passage of the Protect America Act, a law that vastly expanded the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails, the ACLU filed a request for documents with the secret intelligence court that authorizes government wiretaps. In an unprecedented order in response to the ACLU's request, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) first ordered the government to respond and produce documents discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans, only to later announce that it would not make public record or conduct a review to determine whether the legal rulings were properly determined to be classified. Although this decision denied the public the opportunity to learn about the scope of the government's surveillance under the law, notably, the FISC order was only the third time the secret court had ever issued an opinion publicly and the first time it has ruled on a substantive motion made by any party other than the government.

LEARN MORE:
ACLU Asks Secret Intelligence Court to Release Orders That Led to 'Emergency' Wiretapping Legislation (2007)
ACLU Condemns Bush Administration for Opposing Disclosure of FISA Court's Legal Rulings (2007)

The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to learn the details of the government's use of cell phones as tracking devices without a warrant and without showing probable cause. The request came after the Washington Post revealed that federal officials are using Americans' cell phones to pinpoint their location, sometimes without any court oversight. In September 2011, after a four-year legal fight, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the Justice Department to comply with a significant portion of the FOIA request (and ordered other portions to be considered by the District Court).

LEARN MORE:
ACLU v. Department of Justice: ACLU Lawsuit To Uncover Records of Cell Phone Tracking
ACLU Seeks Government Records on Use of Cell Phones as Tracking Devices
Cell Phone Location Tracking Public Records Request
ACLU Wins Round in Battle Against Warrantless Cell Phone Location Tracking
Washington Post: Cellphone Tracking Powers on Request (Nov. 23, 2007)

In July 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) of 2008, giving the National Security Agency (NSA) virtually limitless power to spy on Americans' international phone calls and emails. The legislation not only effectively legalized the secret warrantless surveillance program that President Bush had authorized in late 2001, it gave the NSA new power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international telephone calls and e-mails en masse, without a warrant, without suspicion of any kind, and with only very limited judicial oversight. Less than 24 hours after the bill was signed into law by President Bush, the ACLU filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare the FAA unconstitutional.

LEARN MORE:
Amnesty et al. v. Clapper: FISA Amendment Act Challenge
ACLU Challenges the FISA Amendments Act
FISA Amendments Act FOIA Request

Attorney General Michael Mukasey further revised the 2002 Attorney General's Guidelines to allow the agency to conduct investigations -- called 'assessments' - of ordinary citizens without any factual basis to suspect that the person engages in wrongdoing or poses a threat to national security. Today, assessments require no evidence of wrongdoing to initiate, yet authorize a host of intrusive investigative techniques including physical surveillance, interviews conducted without any suspicion of wrongdoing, and the use of informants.

LEARN MORE:
Fact Sheet - New Attorney General Guidelines
The Dangers of Domestic Spying by Federal Law Enforcement
Spy Files: FBI

Five Inspectors General released a report on President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program that found no specific evidence that the unconstitutional program was effective at monitoring or catching terrorists.

LEARN MORE:
Committee on the Judiciary: Unclassified Report on the President's Surveillance Program (July 10,2009)

The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information about the nationwide eGuardian program, launched in 2009, which is used to collect and share so-called 'Suspicious Activity Reports' (SARs) about people from local, state and federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The government has been using eGuardian to compile data on thousands of Americans' so-called 'suspicious activity,' which could include such innocuous and commonplace activities as using binoculars, taking pictures or video, drawing diagrams and taking notes. SAR programs like eGuardian open the door to racial profiling and other improper police practices precisely because they give police unwarranted discretion to stop people who are not reasonably suspected of wrongdoing and to collect their private information for massive government databases.

LEARN MORE:
ACLU Lawsuit Seeks Information from FBI on Nationwide System for Collecting 'Suspicious Activity' Information
More About Suspicious Activity Reporting

The ACLU, the NYCLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) policy of suspicionless searching, copying and detaining travelers' laptops, cell phones and other electronic devices at the border, even when DHS has no reason to believe a search would reveal wrongdoing. The ACLU's lawsuit is filed on behalf of: The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA); NACDL, the largest U.S. organization of defense attorneys; and Pascal Abidor, a 26-year-old dual U.S.-French citizen who had his laptop searched and confiscated at the Canadian border while traveling home to New York on an Amtrak train in May 2010.

Please note that by playing this clip YouTube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see YouTube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.

LEARN MORE:
Abidor v. Napolitano: ACLU Challenges Suspicionless Laptop Border Search Policy
ACLU v. DHS: Laptop Search FOIA
ACLU Seeks Records About Laptop Searches At The Border
Government Data About Searches of International Travelers' Laptops and Personal Electronic Devices

The ACLU of Southern California files a federal class action law suit against the FBI for infiltrating mainstream mosques in Southern California and targeting Muslim Americans for surveillance solely because of their religion. For over 14 months between 2006 and 2007, FBI agents planted an informant in the Orange County mosques who posed as a convert to Islam and through whom the FBI collected names, telephone numbers, e-mails, and other information on hundreds of individuals, including Sheikh Yassir Fazaga, Ali Malik, and Yassir Abdel Rahim, plaintiffs in the case. The FBI directed the informant, Craig Monteilh, to gather as much information as possible on members of the Muslim community, and to focus on people who were more devout in their religious practice irrespective of whether any particular individual was believed to be involved in criminal activity.

The lawsuit, which was filed along with the Council for American-Islamic Relations of Greater Los Angeles, and the law firm Hadsell Stormer Keeny Richardson & Renick LLP, seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all people targeted by the FBI agents and their informant, requiring the FBI to turn over or destroy all information collected through the discriminatory investigation, as well as damages for emotional distress for the three named plaintiffs.

LEARN MORE:
ACLU/SC, CAIR and Hadsell Stormer Keeny Richardson & Renick LLP Sue FBI for Illegal Surveillance in the Muslim Community

The ACLU and the ACLU of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit challenging the suspicionless search and seizure of electronics and personal data belonging to David House, a computer programmer and U.S. citizen. The lawsuit charged that the government targeted Mr. House solely on the basis of his lawful association with the Bradley Manning Support Network when it seized Mr. House's laptop, USB drive and camera, and proceeded to copy and possibly disseminate their contents.

Please note that by playing this clip YouTube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see YouTube's privacy statement on their website and Google's privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.

LEARN MORE:
House v. Napolitano
ACLU Sues Homeland Security Over Seizure Of Activist's Computer

As Congress passed a four-year extension of expiring Patriot Act provisions, Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall asserted that the Justice Department relies on secret interpretations of the law, enabling domestic surveillance activities that the public and many members of Congress did not understand.

More»

ACLU filed friend-of-the-court brief in United States v. Jones asking the Supreme Court to hold that the government needs to establish probable cause and obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a person's car and tracking their every move. The lawsuit, dubbed 'the most important Fourth Amendment case in a decade' by The New York Times, is the first case in which the Supreme Court will grapple with the profound impact of new technologies on the privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and expected, and could shape whether the Fourth Amendment's protections from warrantless searches keep pace with new technologies, preserving civil liberties into the 21st Century.

LEARN MORE:
Tracked: The Supreme Court Shouldn't Let Technology Trump the Constitution
Cell Phone Location Tracking Public Records Request