Skip to main content

A U.S. federal appeals court on Friday ruled in favour of the Obama administration in a dispute over the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone data on hundreds of millions of Americans.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed a lower court ruling that said the program likely violates the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches.

The ruling means the government can continue collecting the data for the next few months, although the program is set to expire at the end of November under legislation that Congress passed earlier this summer to replace it. The appeals court sent the case back for a judge to determine whether the government must divulge more details about the program that would enable the case to go forward.

Story continues below advertisement

The ruling is the latest in a succession of decisions in federal courts in Washington and New York that at various points threatened the constitutionality of the NSA's surveillance program, but have so far upheld the amassing of records from U.S. domestic phone customers.

The appeals court ruled that challengers to the program have not shown "a substantial likelihood" that they would win their case on the merits.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown said it was possible the government would refuse to provide information about the secret program that could help the challengers pursue their case. In a separate opinion, Judge Stephen Williams said the challengers would need to show they actually were targeted by the surveillance program.

Judge David Sentelle dissented in part, saying he would have thrown the case out entirely because the plaintiffs offered no proof they were ever harmed.

All three judges were appointees of Republican presidents.

The lawsuit was brought by Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer, and Charles Strange, the father of a cryptography technician who was killed in Afghanistan when his helicopter was shot down in 2011. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled in 2013 that the collection was likely unconstitutional.

An appeals court in New York ruled in May that the USA Patriot Act could not be interpreted to allow the NSA's bulk collection of phone surveillance. Neither of the decisions against the government interrupted the collection of electronic records while the legal disputes played out.

Story continues below advertisement

But the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, a secret judicial body that oversees the surveillance program, ruled in June that the New York court was wrong.

In June, Congress approved a measure that would phase out the program over the next six months and replace it with one that keeps the records with phone companies, but allows the government to search them with a warrant.

Mr. Klayman, an activist who has filed hundreds of lawsuits against the federal government, said he is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court. He also said he was confident he could prove that the NSA was "into my cellphone records."

The uproar over the NSA's program began in June, 2013, when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the surveillance to the news media. The agency has said it collects the phone numbers of calls made and received and how long a call lasts, but does not monitor the contents of a call. The FISA court authorizes the phone data program and reviews it about every 90 days.

Critics of the administration's surveillance program say collecting massive amounts of data on phone numbers is a violation of Americans' privacy rights. In response, the government has said it reviews only a tiny fraction of the information it collects.

The revelation that the NSA had for years been secretly collecting all records of U.S. land-line phone calls was among the most controversial disclosures by Mr. Snowden. It stores the information in an NSA database that analysts can query for matches against the phone numbers of known terrorists abroad, searching for domestic connections to plots.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies