The USA FREEDOM Act Answers Judge Leon's Constitutional Concerns

The D.C. District Court decision this week in Klayman v. Obama, holding that the NSA's bulk telephone metadata program likely violates the Fourth Amendment, dealt a major blow to those seeking to codify the program into law. (The ACLU's challenge to the law is pending in New York, and a decision is expected any day.) Judge Richard Leon's ruling demolishes the already shaky legal foundation for the NSA's mass surveillance program, and makes it clear that reform means ending the unconstitutional suspicionless surveillance programs.

Fortunately, there's already a legislative solution for that. In late October, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced the USA FREEDOM Act, which largely addresses Judge Leon's constitutional concerns in Klayman and refocuses law enforcement attention on stopping actual terrorist threats, not snooping on innocent Americans. But before we get there, let's quickly recount why Judge Leon ruled that the bulk collection of every Americans' call records is likely unconstitutional.

In his ruling, Judge Leon directly addressed the government and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's (FISC) opinion that U.S. persons have no privacy rights in their dialing and calling information. The government's argument rests on a 34-year-old Supreme Court case, Smith v. Maryland. In Smith, the government installed a device at a phone company for two days, without a warrant, to gain evidence on a person suspected of committing a robbery and then making harassing phone calls to the victim.

When the surveillance was challenged, the Supreme Court held that U.S. persons have no privacy interest in dialing information sent to a phone company, and police collection of that information does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. The government has been using Smith to justify warrantless surveillance of phone records ever since.

This week's decision recognizes that communications habits have drastically changed since 1979. The constant, total, years-long surveillance of every phone call made in America means the government can paint an intimate portrait of any person's associations, lifestyle, and habits whenever it queries its vast database.

Judge Leon also examined whether the government's claims that the program is essential to national security shifted the constitutional balance at all. It did not. Judge Leon could not get the government to "cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA's bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature."

The program's failure has been well-catalogued. Even one of the NSA's chief proponents, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), admitted this week that the program is not "indispensable" for the nation's security. With the Constitution on one side and little on the other, Judge Leon held that the plaintiffs are likely to win the constitutional argument against the NSA. "Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware 'the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast."

The USA FREEDOM Act recognizes this and restores the constitutional balance. It ends bulk surveillance under the PATRIOT ACT. The collection of business records under the PATRIOT ACT, the pen register statute, and national security letters would be limited to only those records pursuant to an investigation of someone suspected of being a terrorist or in contact with one. By ending indiscriminate surveillance, it refocuses law enforcement energy to programs and investigative techniques that actually work to stop terrorism.

The legislation has greater privacy protections for U.S. persons when their information is incidentally collected, creates a special advocate to argue for greater privacy protections before the FISC, and has provisions to declassify its constitutionally significant rulings.

The bill isn't perfect, but it's the best chance yet at rolling back the NSA's unconstitutional surveillance program and, unlike Senator Feinstein's proposal — the FISA Improvements Act of 2013 — doesn't attempt to codify an unconstitutional program into law.

The Supreme Court may well one day rule if the government's dragnet collection of our phone records is constitutional. Congress, however, could save the nation a lot of time and reassert their role as the Constitution's protectors by passing the USA FREEDOM Act.

Learn more about government surveillance and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alertsfollow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

View comments (2)
Read the Terms of Use

Vicki B.

Oh, really. Why didn't they do this "stopping actual terrorists" before the "actual terrorists" went right ahead with their plans and killed my daughter's dad and thousands of other people?

The concept of terrorists attacking people WASN'T new in 2001. It was already almost as old as God by then, yet nobody in high government positions even took it seriously. They'd been warned several times but ignored every one of the warnings.
We were told that the system was "blinking red," which I took to mean there were so many obvious things going wrong, and I have no idea why nobody checked into it - or tried to stop it.
All on account of it seems that SOME people in our government were so god-awful ARROGANT that THEY decided of their own accord that the people must have been bluffing when they threatened to do something to us.

It's hard enough to live with the violent death of a family member withOUT having to also process all that as well as the grief that apparently never really goes away, especially after you find out that the people who might have helped Osama bin Laden will be set free from Guantanamo Bay as if they never did anything at all. I don't know if ALL of them are guilty, but I could swear that we were told by government officials, as in FBI agents, that they had "strong evidence that Khalid Sheik Mohammed has enough evidence against him to warrant his being tried for his part in the operation."
I have no way of testing the statement to see if it's true, except to say that I had never heard anybody say there was doubt as to his part in the thing. He supposedly supplied money to the operation. I don't know for sure, I don't really care about HIM as much as I'm concerned with whether the other people who helped in this are going to go to prison for it. Or are they all going to walk away scot-free, even the guilty ones, so that we never see any kind of whatever passes for "justice" in this situation?
The only thing I know for sure is that nobody has ever mentioned doubt as to KSM's role in the operation, and it seems that with all the reporters who are writing stories for the sole purpose of contradicting OTHER stories I should have heard if there was doubt in the matter.


Both the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the deputy attorney general James Cole are uncertain whether the USA FREEDOM Act will end bulk collection of telephony meta-data. From EFF (

"We’re concerned that there may be too much wiggle room in the language of the USA FREEDOM Act, such that the Department of Justice will still argue the NSA can collect millions of records of innocent people—even if this is not the correct reading of the bill. This is because the bill allows for collection of records that are both relevant to an existing investigation and that "pertain to" agents of a foreign power and their activities. However, the bill never actually defines "pertain" for the purposes of the statute."

Cole pretty much confirmed that the DOJ would in fact argue, in front of the FISC, that the NSA had the authority to continue collecting the bulk records even if the USA FREEDOM Act passed. During the 12/11/13 Senate judiciary committee hearing, Cole states "Right now the interpretation of the word ‘relevant’ is a broad interpretation. Adding ‘pertinent to a foreign agent’ or ‘somebody in contact with a foreign agent’ could be another way of talking about relevance as it is right now. We’d have to see how broadly the court interprets that or how narrowly.”

Is the ACLU lobbying for a fix to this uncertainty? EFF recommends,

"Providing a strong definition of the word "pertain" and/or explicitly banning bulk collection of records would foreclose this potential abuse of the language."

Stay Informed