American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service

Sixth Circuit

American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service

467 F.3d 590, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 32346, 2006 WL 2827166

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 4, 2006

DocketNo. 06-2095, 06-2140

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 467 F.3d 590 (American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service, 467 F.3d 590, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 32346, 2006 WL 2827166 (6th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The government moves for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s order holding the Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the Government from utilizing the Program “in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and internet communications, in contravention of [FISA and Title III].”

In considering whether a stay pending appeal should issue, we balance the traditional factors governing injunctive relief: (1) whether the applicant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other interested parties; and (4) where the public interest lies. Baker v. Adams County/Ohio Valley Sch. Bd., 310 F.3d 927, 928 (6th Cir.2002); Michigan Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir.1991). This court, in Grutter v. Bollinger, 247 F.3d 631, 633 (6th Cir.2001), noted that

Michigan Coalition said that the success on the merits which must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the [591]*591harm. More than a possibility of success must be shown, and “even if a movant demonstrates irreparable harm that decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the nonmoving party if a stay is granted, he is still required to show, at a minimum, ‘serious questions going to the merits.’ ” (edits and citations omitted).

After careful review, we conclude that this standard has been met in this case. Accordingly, the motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The government moves for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s order holding the Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the Government from utilizing the Program “in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and internet communications, in contravention of [FISA and Title III].”

In considering whether a stay pending appeal should issue, we balance the traditional factors governing injunctive relief: (1) whether the applicant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other interested parties; and (4) where the public interest lies. Baker v. Adams County/Ohio Valley Sch. Bd., 310 F.3d 927, 928 (6th Cir.2002); Michigan Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir.1991). This court, in Grutter v. Bollinger, 247 F.3d 631, 633 (6th Cir.2001), noted that

Michigan Coalition said that the success on the merits which must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the [591]*591harm. More than a possibility of success must be shown, and “even if a movant demonstrates irreparable harm that decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the nonmoving party if a stay is granted, he is still required to show, at a minimum, ‘serious questions going to the merits.’ ” (edits and citations omitted).

After careful review, we conclude that this standard has been met in this case. Accordingly, the motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 F.3d 590, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 32346, 2006 WL 2827166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-civil-liberties-union-v-national-security-agencycentral-security-ca6-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack