Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wikimedia v. NSA (Amicus Brief)
Wikimedia v. NSA (Amicus Brief)
22-190
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION,
Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/
CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE, et al.,
Respondents.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... ii
INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ..............................1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENT .........................................................3
ARGUMENT ...............................................................6
I. This Court’s Intervention Is Necessary To
Preserve Civil Litigation Challenges To FISA
Surveillance. .........................................................6
II. FISC Proceedings Do Not Adequately Protect
Against Government Abuses. ...............................8
A. FISC proceedings lack the adversarial
process essential to effective judicial
review. ............................................................9
B. The government has repeatedly provided
the FISC with materially incomplete or
misleading information. ............................... 11
C. The lack of an adversarial process and
the government’s “lack of candor” render
the FISC’s review process unreliable. ......... 18
III. FISA Challenges In Criminal Prosecutions
Also Do Not Adequately Protect Against
Government Abuses. .......................................... 21
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 25
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
FEDERAL CASES
ACLU v. Clapper,
785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015) ................................ 20
Alderman v. United States,
394 U.S. 165 (1969)............................................. 10
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA,
568 U.S. 398 (2013)............................................. 22
FBI v. Fazaga,
142 S. Ct. 1051 (2022) ...................................... 4, 8
General Dynamics Corp. v. United
States,
563 U.S. 478 (2011)......................................... 7, 26
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v.
McGrath,
341 U.S. 123 (1951)............................................... 9
Kaley v. United States,
571 U.S. 320 (2014)............................................... 9
Klayman v. Obama,
957 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013),
vacated on standing grounds, 800
F.3d 559 (D.C. Cir. 2015).................................... 20
United States v. Al-Jayab,
No. 16-cr-00181 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8,
2016) .................................................................... 23
United States v. Hasbajrami,
No. 11-cr-00623 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24,
2014) .................................................................... 23
iii
FISC CASES
[Redacted], No. [Redacted] (FISC [Date
Redacted]),
https://www.documentcloud.org/doc
uments/4780432-EFF-Document-
2.html .................................................................. 18
[Redacted], No. PR/TT [Redacted] (FISC
[Date Redacted]),
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents
/1118/CLEANEDPRTT%202.pdf........................ 12
[Redacted], No. [Redacted] (FISC Oct. 3,
2011),
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents
/0716/October-2011-Bates-Opinion-
and%20Order-20140716.pdf......................... 14, 21
[Redacted], No. [Redacted] (FISC Nov.
6, 2015),
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents
/20151106-
702Mem_Opinion_Order_for_Public
_Release.pdf ........................................................ 14
[Redacted], No. [Redacted] (FISC Apr.
26, 2017),
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents
/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo
_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf ......................... 14, 18
[Redacted], No. [Redacted] (FISC Oct.
18, 2018),
https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/
documents/702%20Documents/decla
ssified/2018_Cert_FISC_Opin_18Oct
18.pdf................................................................... 15
v
3Available at https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/1118/CLEAN
EDPRTT%202.pdf.
13
4Available at https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/section/pub_
March%202%202009%20Order%20from%20FISC.pdf.
5 Available at https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/0716/Oct
ober-2011-Bates-Opinion-and%20Order-20140716.pdf.
14
6 Available at https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/20151106-
702Mem_Opinion_Order_for_Public_Release.pdf.
7 Available at https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/
2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf.
8 Available at https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/documents/
702%20Documents/declassified/2018_Cert_FISC_Opin_18Oct
18.pdf.
15
9Availableat https://www.intel.gov/assets/documents/702%20Do
cuments/declassified/20/2020_FISC%20Cert%20Opinion_10.19.
2020.pdf.
10 Available at https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examina
tion.pdf.
16
at 2-3 (FISC Dec. 17, 2019). 11 The FISC noted that the
“frequency with which representations made by FBI
personnel turned out to be unsupported or
contradicted by information in their possession, and
with which they withheld information detrimental to
their case, calls into question whether information
contained in other FBI applications is reliable.” Id. at
3; see also In re Accuracy Concerns Regarding FBI
Matters Submitted to the FISC, No. Misc. 19-02, at 1
(FISC Mar. 4, 2020). 12
The IG thus expanded his inquiry, reviewing “a
judgmentally selected sample of 29 [FISA]
applications relating to U.S. Persons and involving
both counterintelligence and counterterrorism
investigations” to assess the FBI’s compliance with
the “Woods Procedures”—the FBI’s procedures to
ensure the accuracy of facts submitted in FISC
surveillance applications. See Dep’t of Justice, Office
of Inspector General, Management Advisory
Memorandum for the Director of the FBI Regarding
the Execution of Woods Procedures for Applications
Filed with the FISC Relating to U.S. Persons, at 2
(Mar. 2020). 13 The IG’s initial report concluded that
25 of the 29 applications contained “apparent errors
or inadequately supported facts.” Id. at 3. For four
FISA applications, the FBI could not locate the files
containing the requisite documentation. Id. at 2-3.
And for three of those four missing files, the FBI “did
11Available at https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/
MIsc%2019%2002%20191217.pdf.
12Available at https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/
Misc%2019%2002%20Opinion%20and%20Order%20PJ%20JEB
%20200304.pdf.
13Available at https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/
a20047.pdf.
17
14Available at https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/
Misc%2019%2002%20Order%20PJ%20JEB%20200403.pdf.
15Available at https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/
21-129.pdf.
16Available at https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/
2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf.
18
17 Available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/
4780432-EFF-Document-2.html.
1850 U.S.C. § 1861 (2012). Section 215 expired in 2020 when
Congress failed to pass reauthorizing legislation.
19
Available at https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/section/pub_
19
May%2024%202006%20Order%20from%20FISC.pdf.
20Available at https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/section/pub_
Dec%2012%202008%20Supplemental%20Opinions%20from%20
the%20FISC.pdf.
20
21Availableat https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/0716/October
-2011-Bates-Opinion-and%20Order-20140716.pdf.
22
23In total, amici are aware of fewer than ten prosecutions where
notice of Section 702 surveillance has been provided. See United
States v. Mohamud, No. 10-cr-00475 (D. Or. Nov. 19, 2013) (ECF
486); United States v. Hasbajrami, No. 11-cr-00623 (E.D.N.Y.
Feb. 24, 2014) (ECF 65); United States v. Khan, No. 12-cr-00659
(D. Or. Apr. 3, 2014) (ECF 59); United States v. Mihalik, No. 11-
cr-00833 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2014) (ECF 145); United States v.
Zazi, No. 09-cr-00663 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2015) (ECF 59); United
States v. Al-Jayab, No. 16-cr-00181 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2016) (ECF
14); United States v. Mohammad, No. 15-cr-00358 (N.D. Ohio
Dec. 21, 2015) (Dkt. Nos. 27-30).
24 See Human Rights Watch, Dark Side: Secret Origins of
Evidence in US Criminal Cases (Jan. 9, 2018), available at
https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/01/09/dark-side/secret-origins-
evidence-us-criminal-cases.
24
26Available at https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/documents/
702%20Documents/statistical-transparency-report/2022_IC_An
nual_Statistical_Transparency_Report_cy2021.pdf.
26
Respectfully submitted.
CHRIS SWIFT DAVID M. GOSSETT
Davis Wright Tremaine Counsel of Record
LLP MEENAKSHI KRISHNAN
1300 SW Fifth Avenue Davis Wright Tremaine
Suite 2400 LLP
Portland, OR 97201 1301 K Street NW
Suite 500 East
ELIZABETH GOITEIN Washington, DC 20005
Brennan Center for (202) 973-4200
Justice at NYU [email protected]
School of Law
1140 Connecticut Ave. NW
Suite 1150
Washington, DC 20036