14
‐
42ACLU
v.
Clapper
UNITED
STATES
COURT
OF
APPEALSF
OR
THE
S
ECOND
C
IRCUIT
August
Term,
2014(Argued:
September
2,
2014
Decided:
May
7,
2015)Docket
No.
14
‐
42
‐
cv________________A
MERICAN
C
IVIL
L
IBERTIES
U
NION
,
A
MERICAN
C
IVIL
L
IBERTIES
U
NION
F
OUNDATION
,N
EW
Y
ORK
C
IVIL
L
IBERTIES
U
NION
,
N
EW
Y
ORK
C
IVIL
L
IBERTIES
U
NION
F
OUNDATION
,
Plaintiffs
‐
Appellants,—
v.
—
J
AMES
R.
C
LAPPER
,
in
his
official
capacity
as
Director
of
National
Intelligence,M
ICHAEL
S.
R
OGERS
,
in
his
official
capacity
as
Director
of
the
National
SecurityAgency
and
Chief
of
the
Central
Security
Service,
A
SHTON
B.
C
ARTER
,
in
hisofficial
capacity
as
Secretary
of
Defense,
L
ORETTA
E.
L
YNCH
,
in
her
officialcapacity
as
Attorney
General
of
the
United
States,
and
J
AMES
B.
C
OMEY
,
in
hisofficial
capacity
as
Director
of
the
Federal
Bureau
of
Investigation,
Defendants
‐
Appellees
.
*
*
The
Clerk
of
Court
is
respectfully
directed
to
amend
the
official
caption
in
thiscase
to
conform
with
the
caption
above.
See
Fed.
R.
App.
P.
43(c)(2).
Case 14-42, Document 168-1, 05/07/2015, 1503586, Page1 of 97
B
e
f
o
r
e:S
ACK
and
L
YNCH
,
Circuit
Judges
,
and
B
RODERICK
,
District
Judge
.
**
__________________Plaintiffs
‐
appellants
American
Civil
Liberties
Union
and
American
CivilLiberties
Union
Foundation,
and
New
York
Civil
Liberties
Union
and
New
YorkCivil
Liberties
Union
Foundation,
appeal
from
a
decision
of
the
United
StatesDistrict
Court
for
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
(William
H.
Pauley,
III,
Judge
)
granting
defendants
‐
appellees’
motion
to
dismiss
and
denying
plaintiffs
‐
appellants’
request
for
a
preliminary
injunction.
The
district
court
held
that
§
215of
the
PATRIOT
Act
impliedly
precludes
judicial
review;
that
plaintiffs
‐
appellants’
statutory
claims
regarding
the
scope
of
§
215
would
in
any
event
failon
the
merits;
and
that
§
215
does
not
violate
the
Fourth
or
First
Amendments
tothe
United
States
Constitution.
We
disagree
in
part,
and
hold
that
§
215
and
thestatutory
scheme
to
which
it
relates
do
not
preclude
judicial
review,
and
that
the bulk
telephone
metadata
program
is
not
authorized
by
§
215.
We
therefore
**
The
Honorable
Vernon
S.
Broderick,
of
the
United
States
District
Court
for
theSouthern
District
of
New
York,
sitting
by
designation.
2
Case 14-42, Document 168-1, 05/07/2015, 1503586, Page2 of 97
VACATE
the
judgment
of
the
district
court
and
REMAND
for
furtherproceedings
consistent
with
this
opinion.VACATED
AND
REMANDED.Robert
D.
Sack,
Circuit
Judge
,
concurs
in
the
opinion
of
the
Court
and
files
aseparate
concurring
opinion.
ALEXANDER
ABDO,
American
Civil
Liberties
Union
Foundation(Jameel
Jaffer,
Patrick
Toomey,
Brett
Max
Kaufman,
Catherine
Crump,American
Civil
Liberties
Union
Foundation,
New
York,
NY;Christopher
T.
Dunn,
Arthur
N.
Eisenburg,
New
York
Civil
LibertiesUnion
Foundation,
New
York,
NY,
on
the
brief
),
New
York,
NY,
forPlaintiffs
‐
Appellants
.STUART
F.
DELERY,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Civil
Division,United
States
Department
of
Justice
(Douglas
N.
Letter,
H.
ThomasByron
III,
Henry
C.
Whitaker,
Appellate
Staff,
Civil
Division,
UnitedStates
Department
of
Justice,
Washington,
DC;
Preet
Bharara,
UnitedStates
Attorney
for
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
New
York,
NY;David
S.
Jones,
John
D.
Clopper,
Emily
E.
Daughtry,
Assistant
UnitedStates
Attorneys,
New
York,
NY,
on
the
brief
),
Washington,
D.C.,
forDefendants
‐
Appellees
.
Laura
K.
Donohue,
Georgetown
University
Law
Center,
WashingtonDC,
Erwin
Chemerinsky,
University
of
California,
Irvine
School
ofLaw,
Irvine,
CA,
for
Amici
Curiae
Former
Members
of
the
ChurchCommittee
and
Law
Professors
in
Support
of
Plaintiffs
‐
Appellants
.Charles
S.
Sims,
Proskauer
Rose
LLP,
New
York,
NY,
for
Amici
CuriaeSenator
Ron
Wyden,
Senator
Mark
Udall,
and
Senator
Martin
Heinrich
inSupport
of
Plaintiffs
‐
Appellants
.
3
Case 14-42, Document 168-1, 05/07/2015, 1503586, Page3 of 97