Anna Smith v. Barack Obama

Ninth Circuit

Anna Smith v. Barack Obama

816 F.3d 1239, 2016 WL 1127087, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5231

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 2016

Docket14-35555

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 816 F.3d 1239 (Anna Smith v. Barack Obama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anna Smith v. Barack Obama, 816 F.3d 1239, 2016 WL 1127087, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5231 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Anna Smith challenges the collection of her metadata pursuant to § 215 of the *1241 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, sec. 215, § 501, 115 Stat. 272, 287-88. That section expired on June 1, 2015, but was revived by the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-23, tit. I, 129 Stat. 268, 269-77 (2015)(codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1861). The USA FREEDOM Act prohibits any further bulk, collection of tangible things pursuant to § 1861 after November 28, 2015. See id. § 103, 129 Stat. at 272; see also id. § 109(a), 129 Stat. at 276.

On November 24, 2015, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) approved the government’s request to retain already collected metadata for two limited purposes. Opinion & Order, In re Application of the FBI for ah Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things, No. BR 15-99 at 1-2 (FISC Ct. Nov. 24, 2015). First, for a period ending on February 29, 2016, the court authorized limited access to the metadata by technical personnel to verify the completeness and accuracy of call detail records produced under targeted production orders issued by the FISC after November 28, 2015. Id. at 6-7. Second,- the court permitted the government to retain the metadata for-litigation purposes after February 29, 2016, subject to conditions set out in an earlier order. Id. at 7-8.

On January 8, 2016, the government filed in the FISC a report expressing its view that, although the USA FREEDOM Act mooted claims for prospective injunc-tive relief (i.e., requests to halt bulk collection pursuant to § 1861), it did not moot claims for retrospective relief (i.e., inventory and destruction of already collected me-tadata). Report Describing the Government’s Assessment Whether the End of Bulk Collection Has Mooted Claims of Certain Plaintiffs, In re Application of the FBI for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things, No. BR 15-99 at 1, 6-7 (FISC, filed Jan. 8, 2016).

We hold that Smith’s claims related to the ongoing collection of • metadata are moot and vacate and remand for their dismissal.

As for Smith’s remaining claims, including her'request that the government purge all of her metadata' collected pursuant’to § 1861, we remand this case for the district court to determine whether they are moot and, if they are not, for the district court to resolve them hr light of the intervening change in law. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

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

ORDER

Anna Smith challenges the collection of her metadata pursuant to § 215 of the *1241 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, sec. 215, § 501, 115 Stat. 272, 287-88. That section expired on June 1, 2015, but was revived by the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-23, tit. I, 129 Stat. 268, 269-77 (2015)(codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1861). The USA FREEDOM Act prohibits any further bulk, collection of tangible things pursuant to § 1861 after November 28, 2015. See id. § 103, 129 Stat. at 272; see also id. § 109(a), 129 Stat. at 276.

On November 24, 2015, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) approved the government’s request to retain already collected metadata for two limited purposes. Opinion & Order, In re Application of the FBI for ah Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things, No. BR 15-99 at 1-2 (FISC Ct. Nov. 24, 2015). First, for a period ending on February 29, 2016, the court authorized limited access to the metadata by technical personnel to verify the completeness and accuracy of call detail records produced under targeted production orders issued by the FISC after November 28, 2015. Id. at 6-7. Second,- the court permitted the government to retain the metadata for-litigation purposes after February 29, 2016, subject to conditions set out in an earlier order. Id. at 7-8.

On January 8, 2016, the government filed in the FISC a report expressing its view that, although the USA FREEDOM Act mooted claims for prospective injunc-tive relief (i.e., requests to halt bulk collection pursuant to § 1861), it did not moot claims for retrospective relief (i.e., inventory and destruction of already collected me-tadata). Report Describing the Government’s Assessment Whether the End of Bulk Collection Has Mooted Claims of Certain Plaintiffs, In re Application of the FBI for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things, No. BR 15-99 at 1, 6-7 (FISC, filed Jan. 8, 2016).

We hold that Smith’s claims related to the ongoing collection of • metadata are moot and vacate and remand for their dismissal.

As for Smith’s remaining claims, including her'request that the government purge all of her metadata' collected pursuant’to § 1861, we remand this case for the district court to determine whether they are moot and, if they are not, for the district court to resolve them hr light of the intervening change in law. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

816 F.3d 1239, 2016 WL 1127087, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anna-smith-v-barack-obama-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack