Filed Date: Sept. 18, 2008
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On September 18, 2008, AT&T customers filed this putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the United States. The plaintiffs, represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and private counsel, claimed that the federal government's electronic surveillance program violated the Fourth Amendment, First Amendment, separation of powers, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Wiretap Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or the Stored Communications Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged the National Security Agency ("NSA") implemented a massive, indiscriminate, illegal dragnet of the phone calls and emails of tens of millions of ordinary Americans since the September 11 terrorist attacks. The core component of the defendants' surveillance program was a nationwide network of sophisticated communication surveillance devices attached to the key facilities of various telecommunication companies that carried Americans' Internet and telephone communications.
On October 28, 2008, Judge Walker marked this case as formally related to Hepting v. AT&T. The Multi District Litigation (MDL) Panel then consolidated the case as part of a multi-district litigation consolidation, In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation. For information about what happened while this case was a part of that multi-district consolidated matter, see Hepting v. AT&T.
After dismissals of almost all of the cases in the MDL, this case was one of only two cases remaining. The other case was Shubert v. Obama. But on January 21, 2010, Judge Walker dismissed both this case and Shubert v. Obama because the plaintiffs failed to establish their standing to bring suit—that is, they failed to establish that they were personally affected by the alleged violation of law. 2010 WL 235075. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On December 29, 2011, the Ninth Circuit vacated Judge Walker's dismissal decision. Writing for the Ninth Circuit, Judge McKeown held that the plaintiffs did have standing, and remanded "with instructions to consider, among other claims and defenses, whether the government's assertion that the state secrets privilege bars this litigation." 673 F.3d 902.
In 2012, Judge Walker retired; the matter was reassigned to District Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 18, 2012. Upon remand, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment requesting that the district court dismiss the defendants' state secret defense. The U.S. cross-moved to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity for the statutory claims and for summary judgment on the assertion of the state secrets privilege.
On July 23, 2013, Judge White granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, rejecting the government's state secrets defense. Judge White granted the government's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for damages under FISA and all statutory claims for injunctive relief on the basis of sovereign immunity, but held that the plaintiffs could bring their claims for damages under the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act because the government had waived sovereign immunity. Judge White reserved ruling on the government's motions for summary judgment on the remaining constitutional claims (counts 1-4 of the Jewel Complaint and the fourth cause of action in the Shubert Complaint). 965 F. Supp. 2d 1090.
On July 24, 2013, Judge White granted a motion to relate this case with First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA.
Under the "minimization" rules applicable to the Section 215 metadata program, the NSA had been required to destroy all metadata within five years of collection. See, e.g., In re Application of the FBI for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things From [Redacted], BR 14-01. In this case, the plaintiffs argued that this data destruction would interfere with their ability to establish the facts needed for their lawsuit. Accordingly, on their request, Judge White entered a temporary restraining order on March 10, 2014, requiring the preservation of relevant evidence pending the parties' further briefing and the Court's final determination of the preservation issues. In its restraining order, the Court required that the government refrain from "destroying any potential evidence relevant to the claims at issue in this action, including but not limited to prohibiting the destruction of any telephone metadata or 'call detail' records, pending further order of the Court." This order applied to this case, Shubert v. Obama, and First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA.
This temporary restraining order directly conflicted with the standing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order in In re Application of the FBI for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things From [Redacted], BR 14-01. To eliminate the conflict, the FISC responded to Judge White's order by granting temporary relief from the five-year destruction requirement but required that telephony metadata being preserved beyond the five-year limitation not be used by the NSA for any purpose.
In the summer of 2014, the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on their Fourth Amendment claim, and the defendants responded by also moving for partial summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim.
On February 10, 2015, Judge White denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Judge White held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to find that they had standing to sue under the Fourth Amendment regarding the possible interception of their Internet communications. Further, even if the plaintiffs could establish standing, the claim would be dismissed because any possible defenses would require impermissible disclosure of state secret information. 2015 WL 545925. On May 20, 2015, the Court held that its adjudication of this claim was a final determination and no just reason existed for delay in entering final judgment on this claim. The court entered partial judgment and dismissed the claim that the government defendants violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs by copying and searching the contents of the plaintiff’s internet communications.
On June 4, 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On December 18, 2015, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The panel concluded that that the certification was not warranted because the question of whether the copying and searching of plaintiff’s Internet communications violated the Fourth Amendment was intertwined with several other issues that remained pending in district court, and the interlocutory appeal would only have prolonged final resolution of the case. Each party was to bear its own costs on appeal. 810 F.3d 622.
On February 19, 2016, Judge White granted plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay of discovery on their claims under the Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act, and ruled that any disputed materials that defendants contended would run the risk of impermissible disclosure of state secret information could be disclosed ex parte for in camera review. 2016 WL 692819. On December 16, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter outlining their respective positions on disputed discovery issues.
On April 26, 2017, the FISC issued an order approving changes to the Section 702 Upstream program, including revised minimization procedures which required the NSA to destroy, as quickly as practicable, all raw Upstream Internet communications data acquired on or before March 17, 2017, that existed in all of NSA’s institutionally managed repositories.
At the May 19, 2017 case management conference, Judge White ordered the government defendants to marshal all of their evidence relating to plaintiffs’ standing and to present that evidence to the court, making as much of it public as possible. The defendants’ production of materials was completed on April 1, 2018. On May 7, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to obtain access to the classified materials, which was opposed by the government defendants, and subsequently denied by the court on June 13, 2018.
On August 17, 2018, Judge White ordered the parties to file dispositive motions to resolve the threshold legal issues raised by the remaining statutory claims in this matter. On August 24, 2018, the parties submitted a joint discovery letter, and the plaintiffs argued that the court should order the government defendants to respond separately and individually to each request for admission.
On September 7, 2018, the government defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. They argued because of the state secrets privilege and of the statutory privileges established by 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1) and 50 U.S.C. § 3605(a), plaintiffs lacked admissible evidence to establish their standing to maintain their statutory claims. Consequently, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider them. Moreover, they argued that dismissal was required because the case could not be litigated on the merits without creating an unjustifiable risk of divulging state secrets. On September 28, 2018, the plaintiffs responded, arguing that (1) the government defendant could not meet its summary judgment burden; (2) the public evidence demonstrated plaintiffs’ standing; (3) the undisclosed classified evidence also demonstrated plaintiffs’ standing; (4) section 2712(b)(4) required the use of classified evidence to decide standing; and (5) this lawsuit may not be dismissed on state secrets grounds.
After the plaintiffs and defendants exchanged responses and replies on the above-mentioned points of contention for several months, the court held oral arguments for the summary judgement motions. On April 25, 2019, the court entered a judgement denying the plaintiffs' summary judgement cross-motion and ordered summary judgement for the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs could not produce admissible evidence to show that the plaintiffs were harmed through surveillance. This was due to a lack of admissible evidence that the customers in question were among those affected by the defendants. Additionally, the classified information the court viewed could not be shared as it would constitute a grave danger to national security. The court found that it could not issue a judgement on whether or not there was redressability for the injury suffered by the plaintiffs without also endangering national security. 2019 WL 11504877.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit on April 25, 2019. Their appeal included the February 10, 2015 order granting defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, the June 13, 2018 order denying plaintiffs’ motion for access to classified discovery materials, the August 28, 2018 order regarding parties’ joint discovery letter brief, the April 25, 2019 order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs’ cross-motion to proceed to the merits, and the court’s April 25, 2019 Classified Order.
On November 2, 2020 a panel of the Ninth Circuit consisting of Circuit Judges Ronald Gould, Margaret McKeown, and Carlos Bea heard argument from the parties. After oral argument, on December 24, 2020, the government filed a letter with the court notifying it that the government had sought certiorari from the Supreme Court in Fazaga v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, another case about the intersection of FISA and the state secrets privilege. The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a response addressing the question of whether this case ought to be held until Fazaga was resolved because of the similar issues they presented on January 27, 2021.
On August 17, 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the government on all claims. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they had not established an injury in fact, as they had not shown that the government surveilled their communications in particular. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s refusal to let the plaintiffs access classified information. 856 F. App'x 640.
The plaintiffs petitioned for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on October 1, 2021, but the Ninth Circuit denied the petition later that month, on October 26. On January 14, 2022, the plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, but the Court declined on June 13, 2022. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Michael Mirdamadi (11/19/2013)
Jessica Kincaid (2/17/2015)
Dawn Lui (12/2/2018)
Carter Powers Beggs (10/24/2019)
Dan Toubman (2/23/2020)
Jonah Hudson-Erdman (2/21/2021)
Venesa Haska (11/17/2023)
Center for Constitutional Rights v. Obama, Northern District of California (2006)
Hepting v. AT&T, Northern District of California (2006)
Shubert v. Obama, Northern District of California (2006)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4175713/parties/jewel-v-national-security-agency/
Antaramian, Aram Vazken (California)
Addington, Gregory W. (California)
Ahern, Paul Edward (District of Columbia)
Anderson, Caroline J (District of Columbia)
Anderson, Gary L. (California)
Antaramian, Aram Vazken (California)
Bankston, Kevin Stuart (District of Columbia)
Berkowitz, Benjamin (California)
Blizzard, Paula Lenore (California)
Greene, David Allen (California)
Hadlock, Audrey Helena (California)
Mackey, Aaron David (California)
Meny, Rachael Elizabeth (California)
Moore, Thomas Edward III (California)
Opsahl, Kurt Bradford (California)
Rumold, Mark Thomas (California)
Sessions, Justina Kahn (California)
Tassin, Phillip James (California)
Tyre, James Samuel (California)
Walton−Hadlock, Audrey Helena (California)
Addington, Gregory W. (California)
Ahern, Paul Edward (District of Columbia)
Anderson, Caroline J (District of Columbia)
Beckenhauer, Eric Boone (California)
Bennett, Jared C. (California)
Berman, Marcia (District of Columbia)
Bowen, Brigham John (California)
Bressler, Steven Yale (California)
Buckingham, Stephen J. (California)
Chan, Priscilla To-Yin (California)
Cipriani, Cindy M (California)
Clopper, John Dalton (California)
Coppolino, Anthony J. (District of Columbia)
Cormier, Claire T. (California)
Cottrell, Barbara D. (California)
Dearinger, Bryan (District of Columbia)
Freeborne, Paul Gerald (District of Columbia)
Gacki, Andrea Marie (California)
Gilligan, James J (District of Columbia)
Haas, Alexander K (District of Columbia)
Harwood, Christopher Blake (California)
Heiman, Julia Alexandra (District of Columbia)
Hemesath, Audrey Benison (California)
Herb, Kimberly L. (California)
Jafek, Timothy Bart (California)
Johnson, Timothy Andrew (District of Columbia)
Jones, David Stuart (California)
Keiper, Melanie Suzanne (California)
Kennedy, Brian G. (California)
Morte, Tara Marie (California)
Norman, Erika Danielle (California)
Orleans, Renee S. (California)
Patton, Rodney (District of Columbia)
Reddy, Kirti Vaidya (California)
Scott, Olivia Hussey (District of Columbia)
Sowles, Marcia K. (California)
Tumlin-Bhattacharyya, Tracy Rupa (California)
Turner, Serrin Andrew (California)
Whitman, James R. (District of Columbia)
Wolverton, Caroline Lewis (California)
Anderson, Gary L. (California)
Bettwy, Samuel William (California)
Brooker, Gregory G (California)
Buchanan, Patricia L. (California)
Cargo, Shane Patrick (California)
Celler, Richard Bernard (California)
Connolly, Christopher Kendrick (California)
Counsel, Bureau of (California)
Davis, Elliott Marc (California)
Delgado-Rucci, David (California)
DiMuzio, Elena Maria (California)
Fidler, Stephanie I. (California)
Finneran, Richard E. (California)
Frost-DOJ, E Scott (California)
Gellis, Catherine Rachel (California)
Girdharry, Glenn M (California)
Hildebrand, Regan (California)
Ihsanullah, Neelam (California)
Ikari, Carolyn Aiko (California)
Isaacson, Eric Alan (California)
Josephson, Matthew Allan (California)
Kathrein, Reed R. (California)
Kirschner, Adam D. (California)
LA-CV, Assistant US (California)
Lawrence, Victor M (California)
Marentette, Pamela (California)
Markman, Michael Myles (California)
McSherry, Corynne (California)
Moore, Kimberly A. (California)
Mozangue, Erika R (California)
Obermeier, Stephen (California)
Page, Michael Henry (California)
Parker, Wilmer Parker (California)
Pence, Richard M. (California)
Pfannenschmidt, Dennis (California)
Prairie, Nicole R (California)
Prime, Caroline Clark (California)
Prose, Susan Begesse (California)
Roberts, Lindsy Michele (California)
Robins, Jeffrey S (California)
Romero, Jacqueline Christine (California)
Scarlett, Shana E. (California)
Shinbaum, Richard D. (California)
Singer, Samuel M. (California)
Steverson, Carolyn Williams (California)
Urban, Jennifer M. (California)
Walker, Elizabeth Lee (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4175713/jewel-v-national-security-agency/
Last updated May 13, 2024, 9:26 p.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- All Matters
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- Telephony Metadata
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—Internet Metadata
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 18, 2008
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All present and future United States persons who have been or will be subject to electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency without a search warrant or court order since September 12, 2001
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
United States (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
FISA Title I Warrant (Electronic Surveillance), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1812
FISA Title IV order (pen register/trap-and-trace), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1841-1846
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.: