Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Jewel Order

Jewel Order

Ratings: (0)|Views: 19,451 |Likes:
Published by vincepci

More info:

Published by: vincepci on Jul 10, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACAROLYN JEWEL, ET AL.,Plaintiffs,v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, ET AL.,Defendants. VIRGINIA SHUBERT, ET AL.,Plaintiffs,v.BARACK OBAMA, ET AL.,Defendants./ No. C 08-04373 JSW No. C 07-00693 JSW
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion for partialsummary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Carolyn Jewel, Tash Hepting, Young Boon Hicks, Erik Knutzen and Joice Walton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (collectively “
 Jewel
Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs”) and the cross motion to dismiss and for summary judgment filed by Defendants National Security Agency, Keith B. Alexander, Michael V.Hayden, United States of America, George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, David S. Addington,the Department of Justice, Alberto R. Gonzales, John D. Ashcroft, John M. McConnell, John D. Negroponte, Michael B. Mukasey, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Dennis C. Blair, John C. Yoo,and Jack L. Goldsmith (collectively “Defendants”).
Case3:08-cv-04373-JSW Document148 Filed07/08/13 Page1 of 26
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282This matter also comes before the Court in a related case upon consideration of themotion to dismiss and for summary judgment filed by Defendants Barack Obama, Keith B.Alexander, the United States of America, and Eric Holder against Plaintiffs Virginia Shubert, Noha Arafa, Sarah Dranoff, and Hilary Botein, on behalf of themselves and all others similarlysituated (collectively “
Shubert 
Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs”).The
 Jewel
Plaintiffs move for partial summary adjudication seeking to have the Courtreject the Defendants’ state secret defense by arguing that Congress has displaced the statesecretes privilege in this action by the statutory procedure prescribed by 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”).The
Shubert 
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint upon remand of the case and the
Shubert 
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis thatCongress did not waive sovereign immunity as to the FISA claim and incorporates by referencethe arguments made in the
 Jewel
Defendants’ motion.Defendants in both related cases move to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ statutory claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that Congress did not waive sovereign immunityas to the statutory claims. Defendants also move for summary judgment on all counts on thegrounds that Plaintiffs’ claims would risk or require the disclosure of certain information that is properly protected by the statutory protections and the state secrets privilege asserted in thisaction by the Director of National Intelligence and by the National Security Agency.Having thoroughly considered the parties’ papers, Defendants’ public and classified declarations, the relevant legal authority and the parties’ arguments, the Court GRANTS the
 Jewel
Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary adjudication by rejecting the state secrets defenseas having been displaced by the statutory procedure prescribed in 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f) of FISA.In both related cases, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ statutoryclaims on the basis of sovereign immunity. The Court further finds that the parties have notaddressed the viability of the only potentially remaining claims, the
 Jewel
Plaintiffs’constitutional claims under the Fourth and First Amendments and the claim for violation of separation of powers and the
Shubert 
Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action for violation of the
Case3:08-cv-04373-JSW Document148 Filed07/08/13 Page2 of 26
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
1
 
The Court DENIES Defendants’ request for a stay of this decision. The subjectmatter and legal questions presented by this lawsuit are timely. To the extent recent eventsinvolving the public disclosure of relevant, and previously classified, information bear on thefuture course of the litigation, the Court shall require that the parties submit further briefingto address these issues.
2
 
For the remaining facts, the Court refers to the
 Jewel
Complaint as it is moreinclusive. The facts pertinent to the Court’s analysis are also similarly alleged in the related 
Shubert 
Complaint which was originally filed May 17, 2006, as part of a multi-districtlitigation action also remanded to this Court.3Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court RESERVES ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the remaining, non-statutory claims.The Court shall require that the parties submit further briefing on the course of thislitigation going forward.
1
BACKGROUND
These cases are two in a series of many lawsuits arising from claims that the federalgovernment, with the assistance of major telecommunications companies, conducted widespread warrantless dragnet communications surveillance of United States citizensfollowing the attacks of September 11, 2001. Plaintiffs filed these putative class actions on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons described as “millions of ordinaryAmericans ... who use[] the phone system or the Internet” and 
 
“a class comprised of all presentand future United States persons who have been or will be subject to electronic surveillance bythe National Security Agency without a search warrant or court order since September 12,2001.” (
 Jewel
Complaint at ¶¶ 1, 7, and 9;
see also Shubert 
Complaint at ¶ 1, 2, 20.)
2
According to the allegations in the
 Jewel
Complaint, a program of dragnet surveillance(the “Program”) was first authorized by Executive Order of the President on October 4, 2001.(
 Jewel
Complaint at ¶¶ 3, 39.) Plaintiffs allege that, in addition to eavesdropping on or readingspecific communications, Defendants have “indiscriminately intercepted the communicationscontent and obtained the communications records of millions of ordinary Americans as part of the Program authorized by the President.” (
 Id.
at ¶ 7.) The core component of the Program is anationwide network of sophisticated communications surveillance devices attached to the keyfacilities of various telecommunications companies that carry Americans’ Internet and 
Case3:08-cv-04373-JSW Document148 Filed07/08/13 Page3 of 26

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->