Federal appeals court upholds gag order on FBI surveillance requests News
Federal appeals court upholds gag order on FBI surveillance requests

A US appeals court ruled [opinion, PDF] on Monday that a nondisclosure requirement in the National Security Letters (NSL) [text] law does not conflict with the First Amendment. Therefore the court also concluded that private companies that are issued an NSL by the FBI [official website] must also follow the nondisclosure requirement if the letter contains it in that case. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] heard the case with Judge Sandra Ikuta delivering the unanimous opinion. The court held that the nondisclosure requirement is a content-based restriction therefore subject to strict scrutiny [Cornell LII backgrounder], but it also survives that scrutiny. “We therefore conclude that the 2015 NSL law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, both as to
inclusiveness and duration. Accordingly, we hold that the nondisclosure requirement in § 2709(c) survives strict scrutiny.” There has been no decision [Reuters report] by the plaintiff parties in this case on if they plan to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The use of communication surveillance continues to be a hot topic in security rights in the US. In May the National Security Agency (NSA) published a report [JURIST report] stating the agency had collected and stored more than 1.5 million civilian phone records in 2016. In March the New York Police Department reached a settlement over its surveillance of Muslims [JURIST report]. The new settlement would create greater oversight of the NYPD’s intelligence-gathering programs by a civilian representative. In the original rejection of the case, the judge stated that the agreement did not ensure that the NYPD would be limited in how it could monitor political and religious activity. In January a judge for the US District Court for the District of Utah refused to dismiss a complaint against the NSA [JURIST report] over allegations of warrantless surveillance during the 2002 winter Olympic games. The case includes individuals who allege their communication devices were searched and seized by the NSA during the games.