Case: Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

10-01157 | U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Filed Date: July 2, 2010

Closed Date: July 15, 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case was filed directly in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Along with this case, there is a related mandamus matter with a different docket number.The Plaintiff is an independent nonprofit research center in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to protect the public's privacy and human rights. On July 2, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Appellate Court. This case was about three agency actions of the Transportation Security Admini…

This case was filed directly in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Along with this case, there is a related mandamus matter with a different docket number.

The Plaintiff is an independent nonprofit research center in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to protect the public's privacy and human rights. On July 2, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Appellate Court. This case was about three agency actions of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). EPIC petitioned the Court for review of these three actions:

(1) failure to act on EPIC'S May 31, 2009, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) petition (the First EPIC Petition): The First EPIC Petition noted the TSA's announcement of a plan to deploy full body scanners (also called "advanced imaging technology" or AIT in the court documents) as the primary means of screening airline passengers in the United States and urged the DHS to undertake a 90-day formal public rulemaking process to receive public input on the agency's use of full body scanners. The DHS wrote a letter to EPIC on June 19, 2009, but failed to grant or deny EPIC's petition for the formal rulemaking concerning TSA's use of full body scanners (the DHS Letter).

(2) the May 28, 2010 Order of the TSA refusing to process of EPIC's April 21, 2010 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) petition ("the Second EPIC Petition"): The Second EPIC Petition sought repeal of the TSA's rule mandating the use of body scanners at airport checkpoints as primary screening. On May 28, 2010, the TSA issued an order refusing to process the Second EPIC Petition, asserting "TSA does not interpret your letter to seek a rulemaking or to constitute a petition under 5 U.S.C. $553." (the TSA Order).

(3) the TSA Rule mandating the use of "full body scanners" at airport checkpoints as primary screening. The TSA entered this Rule recently, but failed to make public the text of the Rule or its date. The TSA recently issued this Rule on a date unknown to Petitioners. This Rule is a final administrative action, and constitutes a final agency rule.

On July 15, 2011, the judges granted in part and denied in part the petition, and ordered, without vacating the rule, that the rule be remanded to TSA to promptly conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings (notifying the public of the proposed new or changed rule and to accept public comments). In summary, the Court ruled for EPIC on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim. One of the factors that the court considered was the need for the TSA to continue its airport security operations without interruption. The court instructed the agency promptly to proceed in a manner consistent with its opinion.

According to the court, the TSA's denial of the petition on the ground that it “is not required to initiate the APA rulemaking procedures each time the agency develops and implements improved passenger screening procedures” rested upon an interpretation of the APA. Therefore, the court focused on the analysis of the APA and certain exceptions to the rulemaking standard procedure in the APA. Specifically, the court analyzed whether the several exceptions that the TSA claimed fit within the APA's exceptions.

In its decision, the court explained that the APA's exceptions urged by the TSA did not apply in this case to justify the TSA's failure to give notice of and receive comment upon such a rule. The court determined that the rule is legislative and not merely interpretive, procedural, or a general statement of policy. In summary, the court determined that the TSA has not justified its failure to initiate notice-and-comment rulemaking before announcing it would use AIT scanners for primary screening.

As for the petitioners' claims, the court denied the petition with respect to the statutory arguments and claim under the Fourth Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

EPIC in August 2011 petitioned for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. On September 12, 2011, the court denied both petitions. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

MJ Koo (2/16/2017)

Lisa Koo (3/23/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4155117/parties/electronic-privacy-information-v-dhs/


Judge(s)

Ginsburg, Douglas Howard (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Brinkmann, Beth S (District of Columbia)

Koppel, John S. (District of Columbia)

Letter, Douglas (District of Columbia)

Singer, Michael Jay (District of Columbia)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Rotenberg, Marc (District of Columbia)

Verdi, John Arthur (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Ginsburg, Douglas Howard (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Brinkmann, Beth S (District of Columbia)

Koppel, John S. (District of Columbia)

Letter, Douglas (District of Columbia)

Singer, Michael Jay (District of Columbia)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Rotenberg, Marc (District of Columbia)

Verdi, John Arthur (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

10-01157

Docket [PACER]

Electronic Privacy Information v. Department of Homeland Security

May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

Docket
BL-2

10-01157

Petition for Review

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security

July 2, 2010

July 2, 2010

Complaint
1318805

10-01157

On Petition for Review of an Order of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Electronic Privacy Information v. DHS

653 F.3d 1

July 15, 2011

July 15, 2011

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4155117/electronic-privacy-information-v-dhs/

Last updated July 29, 2022, 3 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1207009276

PETITION FOR REVIEW filed [1253217] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier of a decision by federal agency [Service Date: 07/02/2010 ] Disclosure Statement: Attached; Certificate of Parties: Not Applicable to this Filing [10-1157]

July 2, 2010

July 2, 2010

RECAP
1207009285

MOTION filed [1253222] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to stay underlying order in case (Response to Motion served by mail due on 07/15/2010) [Service Date: 07/02/2010 by US mail] Pages: 16-20. [10-1157]

July 2, 2010

July 2, 2010

PACER
1207030015

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed [1253798] by John S. Koppel and co-counsel Douglas Letter on behalf of Respondents Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

July 7, 2010

July 7, 2010

PACER
1207065103

MODIFIED DOCKET TEXT--RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1255494] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to motion to stay case [1253222-2] [Service Date: 07/15/2010 by clerk] Pages: 11-15. [10-1157]--[Edited 07/16/2010 by TAG] (Koppel, John)

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

PACER
1207079979

REPLY FILED [1256231] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to response [1255494-2] [Service Date: 07/20/2010 by email] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)

July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

PACER
1207193806

PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1263807] denying motion to stay case construed as a motion for injuctive relief. The Clerk is directed to enter a briefing schedule and to schedule oral argument on the first appropriate date following the completion of briefing [1253222-2] Before Judges: Ginsburg, Brown and Griffith. [10-1157]

Sept. 1, 2010

Sept. 1, 2010

PACER
1207193900

CLERK'S ORDER filed [1263858] ORDERED that respondents submit the certified index to the record by 9/22/10, setting briefing schedule: PETITIONER Brief due 11/01/2010. Appendix due 11/01/2010. RESPONDENT Brief due on 12/01/2010. PETITIONER Reply Brief due 12/15/2010 [10-1157]

Sept. 2, 2010

Sept. 2, 2010

PACER
1207199671

MOTION filed [1266930] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to extend time to file certified index to 10/04/2010. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 10/04/2010) [Service Date: 09/20/2010 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Sept. 20, 2010

Sept. 20, 2010

RECAP
1207200907

CLERK'S ORDER filed [1267653] granting respondents' motion for extension of time to file certified index; Certified index now due by 10/04/2010. [1266930-2] [10-1157]

Sept. 23, 2010

Sept. 23, 2010

PACER
1207204704

CERTIFIED INDEX TO RECORD [1269737] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS [Service Date: 10/04/2010 ] [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Oct. 4, 2010

Oct. 4, 2010

PACER
1207213419

AMENDED CERTIFIED INDEX TO RECORD [1274589] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS [Service Date: 10/29/2010 ] [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Oct. 29, 2010

Oct. 29, 2010

PACER
1207213788

PETITIONER BRIEF [1274825] filed by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier [Service Date: 11/01/2010 ] Length of Brief: 10,956 Words. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)

1 Appellant/Petitioner Brief Filed

View on PACER

2 Al-Khalili Declaration

View on PACER

1 Appellant/Petitioner Brief Filed

View on PACER

2 Al-Khalili Declaration

View on PACER

Nov. 1, 2010

Nov. 1, 2010

PACER
1207215594

MOTION filed [1275922] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to strike the brief (Response to Motion served by mail due on 11/18/2010) [Service Date: 11/05/2010 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Nov. 5, 2010

Nov. 5, 2010

PACER
1207216687

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1276521] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to motion to strike document [1275922-2] [Service Date: 11/09/2010 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)

Nov. 9, 2010

Nov. 9, 2010

PACER
1207217654

REPLY FILED [1277126] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to response [1276521-2] [Service Date: 11/12/2010 by CM/ECF NDA, US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Nov. 12, 2010

Nov. 12, 2010

PACER
1207220706

CLERK'S ORDER filed [1278927], on the court's own motion, suspending the remainder of the briefing schedule pending further order of the court. [10-1157]--[Edited 11/22/2010 by CWC]

Nov. 22, 2010

Nov. 22, 2010

PACER
1207222949

PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1280220] referring motion to strike petitioner's brief [1275922-2] to the merits panel to which this case is assigned. The clerk is directed to enter a new briefing schedule that will make respondents' brief due ten days from the date of this order. Before Judges: Henderson, Garland and Brown. [10-1157]

Nov. 30, 2010

Nov. 30, 2010

PACER
1207223543

MOTION filed [1280577] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to extend time to file brief to 12/23/2010. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 12/16/2010) [Service Date: 12/01/2010 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

PACER
1207225175

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1281570] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to motion to extend time [1280577-2] [Service Date: 12/07/2010 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)

Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

PACER
1207225349

REPLY FILED [1281700] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to response [1281570-2] [Service Date: 12/07/2010 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Letter, Douglas)

Dec. 7, 2010

Dec. 7, 2010

PACER
1207226140

PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1282208] granting motion to extend time [1280577-2], setting briefing schedule: RESPONDENT Brief due on 12/23/2010. PETITIONER Reply Brief due 01/06/2011. Appendix due 01/13/2011. PETITIONER Final Brief due 01/27/2011. RESPONDENT Final Brief due on 01/27/2011. PETITIONER Final Reply Brief due 01/27/2011 Before Judges: Ginsburg, Tatel and Brown. [10-1157]

Dec. 9, 2010

Dec. 9, 2010

PACER
1207229232

CLERK'S ORDER filed [1284098] scheduling oral argument before Judges GINSBURG, HENDERSON, TATEL 03/10/2011 AM [10-1157]

Dec. 21, 2010

Dec. 21, 2010

PACER
1207230381

RESPONDENT BRIEF [1284763] filed by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS [Service Date: 12/23/2010 ] Length of Brief: 13,913 words. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Dec. 23, 2010

Dec. 23, 2010

PACER
1207233741

MODIFIED EVENT--PETITIONER REPLY BRIEF [1286650] filed by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier [Service Date: 01/06/2011 ] Length of Brief: 6,996 words. [10-1157]--[Edited 01/07/2011 by JMC] (Verdi, John)

Jan. 6, 2011

Jan. 6, 2011

PACER
1207237681

NOTICE FILED [1288782] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier . [Service Date: 01/19/2011 ] [10-1157] (Verdi, John)

Jan. 19, 2011

Jan. 19, 2011

PACER
1207237684

MOTION filed [1288784] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier for leave to file appendix (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/03/2011) [Service Date: 01/19/2011 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)

Jan. 19, 2011

Jan. 19, 2011

PACER
1207238256

CLERK'S ORDER filed [1289101] granting petitioners' motion for leave to file the appendix out of time [1288784-2]; The Clerk is directed to file the lodged appendix (Vols. 1-7) [1288835-2] [10-1157]

Jan. 20, 2011

Jan. 20, 2011

PACER
1207240309

INCORRECT DOCKET ENTRY-DISREGARD--RESPONDENT FINAL BRIEF [1290285] filed by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS [Service Date: 01/27/2011 ] Length of Brief: 13,877 words. [10-1157]--[Edited 03/02/2011 by JMC] (Koppel, John)

Jan. 27, 2011

Jan. 27, 2011

PACER
1207240362

PETITIONER FINAL BRIEF [1290310] filed by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier [Service Date: 01/27/2011 ] Length of Brief: 10,400. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)

Jan. 27, 2011

Jan. 27, 2011

PACER
1207240365

PETITIONER FINAL REPLY BRIEF [1290311] filed by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier [Service Date: 01/27/2011 ] Length of Brief: 6,996 Words. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)

Jan. 27, 2011

Jan. 27, 2011

PACER
1207240550

MOTION filed [1290427] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to supplement the appendix (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/10/2011) [Service Date: 01/28/2011 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Jan. 28, 2011

Jan. 28, 2011

PACER
1207244367

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1292659] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to motion to supplement [1290427-2] [Service Date: 02/10/2011 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)

Feb. 10, 2011

Feb. 10, 2011

PACER
1207245662

REPLY FILED [1293387] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to response [Service Date: 02/15/2011 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Feb. 15, 2011

Feb. 15, 2011

PACER
1207247309

PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1294351] that the motion for leave to file the sealed ex parte supplemental appendix be granted in part. Respondents' request to file the sealed supplement ex parte is granted with respect to the items in the joint appendix that contain sensitive security information as designated by the STA pursuant to 49 USC 114Ir)(1)(C) and 49 CFR pt. 1520. Respondents are directed to file ex parte, within 3 days, a sealed supplement limited to those terms. It is FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's request to file the sealed supplement ex parte is denied with respect to three copyrighted documents that were omitted in their entirety from the joint appendix: JA 1, 2, and 87. Respondent's are directed to file and serve under seal, within 3 days, a supplement to the joint appendix containing those items. It is FURTHER ORDERED that respondents file and serve, within 7 days, a corrected brief with appropriate page references to the two sealed supplements. The Clerk is directed to return the lodged supplemental appendix. Before Judges: Ginsburg, Henderson and Tatel. [10-1157]

Feb. 22, 2011

Feb. 22, 2011

PACER
1207248417

PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1295025] allocating oral argument time as follows: Petitioners -- 15 Minutes, Respondents -- 15 Minutes. One counsel per side to argue; directing party to file Form 72 notice of arguing attorney - due 03/03/2011 [10-1157]

Feb. 25, 2011

Feb. 25, 2011

PACER
1207248612

LETTER FILED [1295136] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS . [Service Date: 02/25/2011 ] [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Feb. 25, 2011

Feb. 25, 2011

PACER
1207249520

CORRECTED RESPONDENT FINAL BRIEF [1295625] filed by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS [Service Date: 03/01/2011 ] Length of Brief: 13,885 words. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

March 1, 2011

March 1, 2011

PACER
1207250473

LETTER FILED [1296174] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS concerning possible closure of courtroom. [Service Date: 03/03/2011 ] [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

March 3, 2011

March 3, 2011

PACER
1207251715

LETTER FILED [1296942] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier concerning oral argument format [Service Date: 03/08/2011 ] [10-1157] (Verdi, John)

March 8, 2011

March 8, 2011

PACER
1207252398

ORAL ARGUMENT HELD before Judges Ginsburg, Henderson and Tatel. [10-1157]

March 10, 2011

March 10, 2011

PACER
1207253185

LETTER FILED [1297848] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS regarding oral argument matter [Letter clarifying response at oral argument] [Service Date: 03/14/2011 ] [10-1157] (Letter, Douglas)

March 14, 2011

March 14, 2011

PACER
1207289456

PER CURIAM JUDGMENT filed [1318804] that the petition for review be granted in part, be denied in part, and the rule be remanded to TSA for prompt proceedings for the reasons in the accompanying opinion . Before Judges: Ginsburg, Henderson and Tatel. [10-1157]

July 15, 2011

July 15, 2011

PACER
1207289459

OPINION filed [1318805] (Pages: 18) for the Court by Judge Ginsburg [10-1157]

July 15, 2011

July 15, 2011

PACER
1207289465

CLERK'S ORDER filed [1318807] withholding issuance of the mandate. [10-1157]

July 15, 2011

July 15, 2011

PACER
1207289512

CLERK'S ORDER filed [1318830] that the motion to strike document be dismissed as moot in light of the court's opinion issued on July 15, 2011. [1275922-2] [10-1157]

July 15, 2011

July 15, 2011

PACER
1207301804

PETITION filed [1326484] by Petitioners Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier for rehearing, for rehearing en banc. [Service Date: 08/29/2011 by CM/ECF NDA, US Mail] Pages: 11-15. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)

Aug. 29, 2011

Aug. 29, 2011

PACER
1207306158

PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1328890] denying petition for rehearing [1326484-2] Before Judges: Ginsburg, Henderson and Tatel. [10-1157]

Sept. 12, 2011

Sept. 12, 2011

PACER
1207306161

PER CURIAM ORDER, En Banc, filed [1328891] denying petition for rehearing en banc [1326484-3] Before Judges: Sentelle, Ginsburg, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith and Kavanaugh. [10-1157]

Sept. 12, 2011

Sept. 12, 2011

PACER
1207322243

MOTION filed [1338525] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to enforce mandate (Response to Motion served by mail due on 11/10/2011) [Service Date: 10/28/2011 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 16-20. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)

Oct. 28, 2011

Oct. 28, 2011

PACER
1207326735

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1341159] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to motion to enforce mandate [1338525-2] [Service Date: 11/10/2011 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 11-15. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Nov. 10, 2011

Nov. 10, 2011

PACER
1207328817

PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1342367] denying motion to enforce mandate [1338525-2] Before Judges: Henderson, Tatel and Ginsburg. [10-1157]

Nov. 16, 2011

Nov. 16, 2011

PACER
1207341733

MOTION filed [1349517] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to enforce mandate (Response to Motion served by mail due on 01/06/2012) [Service Date: 12/23/2011 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 16-20. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)

Dec. 23, 2011

Dec. 23, 2011

PACER
1207342159

MOTION filed [1349760] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to extend time to file response to 01/13/2012. [Service Date: 12/27/2011 ] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Letter, Douglas)

Dec. 27, 2011

Dec. 27, 2011

PACER
1207342793

CLERK'S ORDER filed [1350107] Upon consideration of respondents’ unopposed motion for extension of time to file a response to petitioners’ second motion to enforce the mandate, it is ORDERED that the motion be granted. The response is now due on or before January 13, 2012. [10-1157]

Dec. 29, 2011

Dec. 29, 2011

PACER
1207346205

MOTION filed [1352181] by Electronic Privacy Information Center for attorneys fee (Response to Motion served by mail due on 01/26/2012) [Service Date: 01/11/2012 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 16-20. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)

Jan. 11, 2012

Jan. 11, 2012

PACER
1207347216

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1352715] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to motion to enforce mandate [1349517-2] [Service Date: 01/13/2012 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Jan. 13, 2012

Jan. 13, 2012

PACER
1207347768

REPLY FILED [1353010] by Electronic Privacy Information Center to response [1352715-2] [Service Date: 01/17/2012 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)

Jan. 17, 2012

Jan. 17, 2012

PACER
1207351380

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1355018] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to motion for attorney fees [1352181-2] [Service Date: 01/26/2012 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 16-20. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

Jan. 26, 2012

Jan. 26, 2012

RECAP
1207353395

PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1356176] denying motion to enforce mandate [1349517-2] Before Judges: Henderson, Tatel and Ginsburg. [10-1157]

Feb. 2, 2012

Feb. 2, 2012

PACER
1207353510

REPLY FILED [1356251] by Electronic Privacy Information Center to response [1355018-2] [Service Date: 02/02/2012 by CM/ECF NDA, US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)

Feb. 2, 2012

Feb. 2, 2012

PACER
1207357678

PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1358453] denying motion for attorney fees [1352181-2] Before Judges: Henderson, Tatel and Ginsburg. [10-1157]

Feb. 15, 2012

Feb. 15, 2012

RECAP
1207367720

MODIFIED EVENT-- MOTION filed [1364130] by Electronic Privacy Information Center for panel and en banc reconsideration of order denying attorneys' fees [1358453-2] (Response to Motion served by mail due on 03/29/2012) [Service Date: 03/16/2012 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157]--[Edited 03/20/2012 by JMC] (Rotenberg, Marc)

March 16, 2012

March 16, 2012

PACER
1207369857

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed [1365322] by Beth S. Brinkmann (appearance already entered) and co-counsel Michael Jay Singer on behalf of Respondents Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

March 23, 2012

March 23, 2012

PACER
1207370073

MOTION filed [1365427] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to extend time to file response to 04/12/2012 at 11:59 pm. [Service Date: 03/23/2012 ] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

March 23, 2012

March 23, 2012

PACER
1207371379

NOTICE FILED [1366112] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to withdraw attorney John Arthur Verdi who represented Bruce Schneier, Chip Pitts and Electronic Privacy Information Center in 10-1157 [Service Date: 03/28/2012 ] [10-1157] (Verdi, John)

March 28, 2012

March 28, 2012

PACER
1207372184

CLERK'S ORDER filed [1366590] Upon consideration of respondents’ unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a response to the motion for reconsideration, it is ORDERED that the motion be granted. Respondents may file a response on or before April 12, 2012. [1365427-2] [10-1157]

March 30, 2012

March 30, 2012

PACER
1207375738

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1368543] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to motion to reconsider [1364130-4] [Service Date: 04/12/2012 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)

April 12, 2012

April 12, 2012

PACER
1207377264

REPLY FILED [1369406] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to response [1368543-2] [Service Date: 04/18/2012 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)

April 18, 2012

April 18, 2012

PACER
1207382235

PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1372216] Upon consideration of petitioner Electronic Privacy Information Center’s motion for panel reconsideration of the denial of petitioner’s motion for fees, the response thereto, and the reply, it is ORDERED that the motion be denied. Before Judges: Henderson, Tatel and Ginsburg. [10-1157]

May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

PACER
1207382238

PER CURIAM ORDER, En Banc, filed [1372217] Upon consideration of petitioner Electronic Privacy Information Center’s motion for en banc reconsideration of the denial of petitioner’s motion for fees, the response thereto, and the reply, it is ORDERED that the motion be denied. Before Judges: Sentelle, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith, Kavanaugh and Ginsburg. [10-1157]

May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

National Security

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 2, 2010

Closing Date: July 15, 2011

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A non-profit research organization involved with civil liberties, including a right to privacy.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Department of Homeland Security (District of Columbia), Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

FISA Title I Warrant (Electronic Surveillance), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1812

Constitutional Clause(s):

Unreasonable search and seizure

Special Case Type(s):

Appellate Court is initial court

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 2012 - 2012

Issues

General:

Other

Religious programs / policies

Type of Facility:

Government-run