Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA
- EPIC Urges FCC to Investigate AT&T’s Practice of Selling Consumer Phone Records: In a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, EPIC urged the FCC to determine whether AT&T violated the Communications Act when it sold private consumer call detail information to the Drug Enforcement Administration and Central Intelligence Agency. EPIC's letter follows an earlier letter where EPIC asked the FCC to resolve whether Verizon violated the Communications Act when it released consumer call detail information to the National Security Agency. EPIC's letter also informed the Commission that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has issued a draft resolution underscoring the crucial role of the FCC in protecting consumer information. For more information, see EPIC: In re EPIC and EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (Nov. 18, 2013)
- Leahy and Sensenbrenner Introduce USA FREEDOM Act: The Democratic Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Republican author of the Patriot Act have introduced the USA FREEDOM Act, which would reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and limit NSA surveillance activities. A bi-partisan coalition, including 17 Senators and 70 Members of Congress, have joined as original co-sponsors. Key provisions of the FREEDOM Act increase transparency of intelligence activities, prevent end-runs around the FISA Court, and improve public reporting. In 2012 EPIC testified before the House Judiciary Committee about the need to reform FISA and to improve oversight of the FISA court. The FREEDOM Act also ends the controversial bulk phone records collection program. EPIC has brought a challenge in the Supreme Court to the phone records program, explaining that it is unlawful under current law. For more information, see EPIC: In re EPIC and EPIC - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (Oct. 29, 2013)
- Government Responds to EPIC's Supreme Court Challenge of NSA Telephone Record Program: The Solicitor General has filed a response to EPIC's challenge to the NSA's telephone record collection program. In July, EPIC petitioned the Supreme Court to vacate the order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that requires Verizon to turn over all telephone records to the NSA. EPIC argued that the Intelligence Court exceeded its legal authority and could not compel a telephone company to disclose so much personal information unrelated to a foreign intelligence investigation. Legal scholars and former Members of Congress filed briefs in support of EPIC's petition, including privacy and national security scholars, constitutional scholars, federal courts scholars, and members of the Church Committee. Congressman James Sensenbrenner, the primary author of the Patriot Act, has said that the telephone records collection program was never authorized by Section 215. For more information, see In re EPIC. (Oct. 14, 2013)
- Senator Leahy Urges FISA Reform at Georgetown Law: Speaking at a conference hosted by the Georgetown University Law Center, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for an end "to the bulk collection of Americans' phone records." Senator Leahy said "the system set up in the 1970s to regulate the surveillance capabilities of our Intelligence Community is no longer working. We must recalibrate." Senator Leahy has introduced bipartisan legislation that would end the telephone record collection program, reduce secret law, and improve the structure of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold an oversight hearing next week on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. EPIC has filed a petition with the US Supreme Court, arguing that the bulk collection of telephone toll records is unlawful. For more information, see EPIC - In re EPIC. (Sep. 25, 2013)
- Senators Call for Public Report by IC Inspector General on NSA Surveillance: A bipartisan group of Senators, including the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have called for a full-scale review of the use of surveillance authorities by the intelligence community. The Senators emphasized that the findings and conclusions of this review be made public to "help promote greater oversight, transparency, and public accountability." The requested report would address activities conducted under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Section 702 of the FISA, which includes the collection of the telephone call records of hundreds of millions of Americans. Specifically, the report would review the use and implementation of 215 and 702, the applicable minimization procedures, any improper use of the authorities, and examine the effectiveness over the 2010-2013 period. EPIC is currently challenging the order for bulk collection of domestic call records in its Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the U.S. Supreme Court. For more information, see In re EPIC and EPIC: FISA Reform. (Sep. 24, 2013)
- Foreign Intelligence Court Releases Controversial Opinion on Domestic Telephone Records Program: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has released an Opinion, justifying the NSA's telephone record collection program. In the Opinion, Judge Claire Eagan states that "there is no Fourth Amendment impediment to the collection" of all domestic call detail records. Judge Eagan also concluded that all domestic call detail records are "relevant" under Section 215 because "individuals associated with international terrorist organizations use telephonic systems to communicate" and because the government argued that bulk collection is 'necessary to create a historical repository of metadata' in order to identify 'known and unknown operatives. This FISC opinion was issued more than a month after EPIC filed its Mandamus Petition challenging the NSA domestic surveillance in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Eagan opinion has also been criticized by legal scholars. For more information, see In re EPIC. (Sep. 20, 2013)
- EPIC Meets with President's Intelligence Review Group: EPIC President Marc Rotenberg and EPIC Advisory Board Member Steve Aftergood met today with the Review Group on Intelligence and Communication Technology. The President tasked the panel with the responsibility to assess whether the "United States employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust." EPIC submitted detailed recommendations and included copies of EPIC's Supreme Court petition, arguing that the current domestic surveillance program is unlawful, as well as EPIC's Congressional testimony on the FISA Amendments Act and EPIC's 2010 letter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court concerning reform of FISA procedures. The panel will accept comments from the public until October 4, 2013. Comments are to be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org, which oddly is the domain of the current Director of National Intelligence. (Sep. 9, 2013)
- New Surveillance Reports for Intelligence Community: The Director of National Intelligence has announced that the Intelligence Community will release annually "aggregate information concerning" the use of national security authorities. The reports will include the use of both FISA and National Security Letter legal authorities. EPIC has previously recommended improved reporting of FISA activities, similar to the wiretap reports issued by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. News reports indicate that the Intelligence Community paid Internet companies $394 m in 2011 to provide customer data to the US government. For more information, see EPIC: FISA Reform. (Aug. 30, 2013)
- President Announces Intelligence Review Group, EPIC Presses for FISA Reform: President Obama met this week with the members of a newly formed group of experts to review intelligence and communications technologies. The group consists of computer security advisor Richard Clark, former CIA Director Michael Morell, and legal scholars Geoffrey Stone, Cass Sunstein, and Peter Swire. The White House said the group would advise the President on how "the United States can employ its technical collection capabilities in a way that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while respecting our commitment to privacy and civil liberties, recognizing our need to maintain the public trust, and reducing the risk of unauthorized disclosure." This week, EPIC contacted each of the review group members to provide important materials regarding the protection of privacy and civil liberties. EPIC sent to the Review Group members copies of EPIC's Supreme Court petition, arguing that the current domestic surveillance program is unlawful, as well as EPIC's Congressional testimony on the FISA Amendments Act and EPIC's 2010 letter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court concerning reform of FISA procedures. For more information, see EPIC: FISA Reform. (Aug. 28, 2013)
- FISA Court: NSA Violated Fourth Amendment and the FISA: A newly released opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found that the NSA violated the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when it acquired tens of thousands of wholly-domestic Internet communications. According to the opinion of the former Presiding Judge of the FISA Court, the NSA acquired more than 250 Million Internet communications per year. Roughly 9% of these communications are obtained via "upstream collection" and more than 50,000 each year contain domestic communications. The FISC found that NSA's targeting and minimization procedures were not reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given the large number of wholly domestic communications obtained. The FISC also found that NSA's minimization procedures violated the FISA, and required that the agency adopt additional protections to ensure privacy. For more information, see EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Aug. 22, 2013)
- Whether Respondents have established Article III standing to seek prospective relief based on their claims that the United States would imminently acquire their international communications - based upon their understanding of the application of the FISA Amendments Act - using Section 1881a-authorized surveillance.
This case tests whether economic and professional costs related to the reasonable fear of being monitored under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act constitute an injury sufficient to give the plaintiffs the right to challenge the law in an Article III court.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 to remedy abuses of electronic surveillance conducted for the purposes of national security. It establishes a separate legal regime for "foreign intelligence" surveillance. Whereas in ordinary criminal investigations, warrantless interception of telephone and email communications by the federal government is considered to be a serious encroachment on individuals rights of privacy and liberty, FISA allows the federal government to conduct surveillance as long as it shows that there is probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. The government does not have to make a showing of individualized suspicion as to criminal conduct.
Per usual procedure, a FISA Court ("FISC") issues a "FISA warrant" upon a demonstration of probable cause that the target is a foreign power or agent thereof, but there are numerous exceptions to this procedure. Of particular importance is Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 ("FAA"), codified as 50 U.S.C. 1181a, which allows the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize jointly the targeting of non-United States persons for the purposes of gathering intelligence for a period of up to one year. 50 U.S.C. 1881a(1). Section 702 contains restrictions, including the requirement that the surveillance "may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States." 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(b)(1). The Attorney General and DNI must submit to the FISC an application for an order ("mass acquisition order") for the surveillance either before their joint authorization or within seven days thereof. The FAA sets out a procedure by which the Attorney General and DNI must obtain certification from FISC for their program, which includes an assurance that the surveillance is designed to limit surveillance to persons located outside of the United States. However, the FAA does not require the government to identify targets of surveillance, and the FISC does not consider individualized probable cause determinations or supervise the program. The FAA permits interception of the communications of United States persons so long as the surveillance program was not designed to target those persons but rather the foreign actors with whom they communicated.
Clapper on the Merits
The plaintiffs are attorneys and human rights, labor, legal, and media organizations who regularly engage in sensitive or privileged telephone and email communications. In July 2008, they sued in the Southern District of New York for a declaratory judgment that the FAA violated their constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. They have not cited specific instances in which their communications have been intercepted, but rather have emphasized their "fear that their communications will be monitored," which compelled them "to undertake costly and burdensome measures to protect the confidentiality of international communications necessary to carrying out their jobs." Amnesty Int'l USA v. Clapper, 638 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2011). Thus, the plaintiffs proffer two bases for standing: the fear of being monitored and costs incurred because of that fear.
This case has not yet reached the merits stage. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for lack of standing. The court explained that circuit precedent required a more substantive alleged harm than the fear of monitoring, which the court called "abstract" and "hypothetical." Amnesty Int'l USA v. McConnell, 646 F. Supp. 2d 633, 646, 659 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Costs incurred to protect communications from interception were not sufficient to support standing because these costs were not independent from the fear of interception. Id. at 653.
On review, the Second Circuit reversed the district court, concluding that the plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact in the form of economic and professional harms. Judge Lynch reasoned that the plaintiff's fear of being monitored was reasonable based on a "realistic understanding of the world." Because it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to fear monitoring under the FAA, the measures they took to prevent the interception of these communications is sufficient to support standing.
The Circuit split 6-6 in refusing to reconsider the decision en banc. In its petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, the government argued that the Second Circuit erroneously found that the plaintiffs suffered a harm because the costs incurred by the plaintiffs are the plaintiffs' own doing.
The Supreme Court granted review of Clapper on May 21.
EPIC has a strong interest in protecting important Fourth Amendment rights, including the privacy of personal communications. The FAA, particularly Section 702, establishes a regime that allows the federal government to conduct mass surveillance of communications, including communications of American citizens, without a warrant or without particularized suspicion. Such sweeping governmental surveillance is contrary to established Fourth Amendment principles, and it threatens the privacy of all Americans, especially those engaged in international communications.
The question before the Supreme Court, whether the plaintiffs can establish standing to challenge a mass surveillance program, is critically important to protecting Fourth Amendment privacy rights. The government's foreign intelligence activities necessarily involve a great deal of secrecy, and mass surveillance under the FAA is not a transparent process. A failure to recognize plaintiff's legitimate fears that their communications are being intercepted, especially where plaintiffs regularly communicate with international clients and confidential sources, would effectively bar judicial review of FISA-authorized surveillance programs. Proceedings in the FISA Court of Review are not adversarial, and it is nearly impossible to challenge its decisions. Notably, in In re Directives, the FISA Court of Review recognized a foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the Fourth Amendment. Without an individual's right to challenge unlawful government action in Article III courts, important civil and constitutional rights may never be vindicated.
The Supreme Court ruled on February 26, 2013 that a constitutional challenge to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act cannot go forward. The Court stated that the Respondents had not presented sufficient proof to establish standing to sue the federal government. In a divided 5-4 decision, Justice Alito wrote that the group's alleged injuries were too speculative to be considered. The majority said that the group could not prove, with “certainly impending” likelihood, that the government has intercepted or would intercept their communications. The Court said that the group’s expenditures and attempts to avoid government surveillance are also not sufficient to get their case heard in court. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas also signed on to the majority opinion.
Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor, dissented and said that the Court's "certainly impending" standard was inconsistent with prior decisions. Justice Breyer wrote that to be heard in court, a party need only show a reasonable apprehension or reasonable likelihood that they will be injured by the government’s actions. He wrote that these attorneys and journalists communicate with exactly the types of people that the government would have an interest in monitoring, and therefore it is likely that their communications are being or would be intercepted. Justice Breyer also cited EPIC's "friend of the court" brief which described the extraordinary capacity of the NSA to capture private communications. EPIC’s brief discussed the history of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping, the NSA’s expanding capabilities, and FISA’s lack of transparency or oversight.
United States Supreme Supreme Court
- Opinion of the Court
- Oral Argument Audio
- Oral Argument Transcript
- Brief of Amnesty International USA et al.
- Brief of James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, et al.
- Reply Brief of James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, et al.
- "Friend of the Court" Brief in Support of Petitioner Clapper
- "Friend of the Court" Briefs in Support of Respondent Amnesty International
- Transcript of Oral Argument held Oct. 29, 2012
- Brief of Electronic Privacy Information Center et al.
- Brief of Canadian Civil Liberties Association et al.
- Brief of Former Church Committee Members and Staff
- Brief of Gun Owners Foundation
- Brief of the Committee on Civil Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York
- Brief of New York State Bar Association
- Brief of Constitutional Accountability Center
- Brief of Center for Constitutional Rights et al.
- Brief of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
- Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Amnesty Int'l USA v. Clapper, 667 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2011) (denial of reh'g en banc)
- Amnesty Int'l USA v. Clapper, 638 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2011)
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
- Amnesty Int'l USA v. McConnell, 646 F. Supp. 2d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
Supreme Court Precedent
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S> 555 (1992)
- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S> 289 (1979)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975)
- Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)
Second Circuit Precedent
- Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2003)
- Vt. Right to LIfe Comm. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2000)
- St. Pierre v. Dyer, 202 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 2000)
- Curtis v. City of New Haven, 726 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1984
Other Relevant Precedent
- In re Directives, (FISA Ct. Rev. 2008)
- ACLU v. NSA, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007)
- In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2002)
- United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. v. Reagan, 738 F.2d 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
Law Review Articles, Books, and Other Sources
- David Kris & J. Douglas Wilson, National Security Investigations & Prosecutions (2012).
- Letter from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to Senators Wyden and Udall (July 26, 2011)
- Brian Calabrese, Note, Fear-Based Standing: Cognizing an Injury-in-Fact, 68 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1445 (2011).
- Matthew M. Aid, The Secret Sentry (Bloomsbury 2009).
- Scott Michelman, Who Can Sue Over Government Surveillance?, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 71 (2009).
- Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense et al., Unclassified Report on the President's Surveillance Program (2009).
- Orin Kerr, Updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 75 U. Chi. L. Rev. 225 (2008).
- Whitfield Diffie & Susan Landau, Privacy on the Line (MIT Press 2007 ed.).
- James Bamford, Body of Secrets (Anchor Books 2001).
- James Bamford, The Puzzle Palace (1982).
- Final Reports of the S. Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, S. Rep. No. 94-755 (1976) ("Church Committee Report")
- Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Surveillance Law, Wash. Post, Feb. 26, 2013.
- Greg Stohr, Wiretapping-Law Challenges Barred by U.S. Supreme Court, Bloomberg, Feb. 26, 2013.
- Nina Totenberg, Supreme Court Makes It Harder to Challenge Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, NPR, Feb. 26, 2013.
- David Savage, Supreme Court Rules Out Secret Surveillance Lawsuit, L.A. Times, Feb. 26, 2013.
- Richard Wolf, Supreme Court Blocks Challenge to Anti-Terrorism Law, USA Today, Feb. 26, 2013.
- Warren Richey, Surveillance Law: U.S. Group Can't Challenge It, Supreme Court Rules, Christian Sci. Monitor, Feb. 26, 2013.
- Jesse J. Holland, Court Won't Allow Challenge to Surveillance Law, AP, Feb. 26, 2013.
- Lawrence Hurley & Jonathan Stemple, Supreme Court Throws Out Challenge to Surveillance Law, Reuters, Feb. 26, 2013.
- Jonathan Stemple, Supreme Court Weighs Challenge to Eavesdropping Law, Reuters, Oct. 29, 2012.
- David Savage, Supreme Court May Let Suit Against U.S. Wiretapping Law Proceed, L.A. Times, Oct. 29, 2012.
- Robert Barnes, At Supreme Court, Challengers to Wiretap Law Say Its Secrecy Creates a Catch 22, Washington Post, Oct. 29, 2012.
- Jess Bravin, High Court Weighs Surveillance Suit, Wall St. J, Oct. 29, 2012.
- Jesse J. Holland, Court Skeptical About Tossing Surveillance Suit, Associated Press, Oct. 29, 2012.
- Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Wiretaps Law, NY Times, Oct. 29, 2012, at A13.
- Nina Totenberg, Despite Hurricane, Justices Hear Surveillance Case, NPR (Oct. 29, 2012).
- Laurie Asseo, Supreme Court Justices May Allow Challenge to Wiretap Law, Bloomberg Oct. 29, 2012.
- Editorial, Surveillance and Accountability, N. Y. Times, Oct. 28, 2012 at A26.
- Garrett Epps, Is Big Brother The New Normal? The Supreme Court Will Decide, The Atlantic, Oct. 28, 2012.
- Eric Posner, Why Amnesty Should Lose at the Supreme Court, Slate, Oct. 26, 2012.
- Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Surveillance Case, N.Y. Times, May 21, 2012.
- Robert Barnes, Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Electronic Surveillance, Wash. Post, May 21, 2012.
- David G. Savage, Justices to Hear Suit Challenging Wiretap Program, Chicago Tribune, May 22, 2012.
- Eric Lichtblau & James Risen, Officials Say U.S. Wiretaps Exceeded Law, N.Y. Times, Apr. 16, 2009 at A1.
- Howard Wasserman, So Much For Unanimity, ProfsBlawg (Feb. 26, 2013).
- Jonathan Adler, No Standing to Challenge FISA Surveillance, Volokh Conspiracy (Feb. 26, 2013)
- Ruthann Robson & Steven D. Schwinn, No Standing to Challenge FISA Amendments on Domestic Surveillance, Supreme Court Holds, Constitutional Law Prof Blog (Feb. 26, 2013)
- Julian Sanchez, Secret Spying and the Supreme Court's Constitutional Catch-22, Cato@Liberty (Feb. 26, 2013)
- Kent Scheidegger, FISA and Standing, Crime & Consequences (Feb. 26, 2013)
- Joe Mullin, Supreme Court Kills Activists' Challenge to FISA Spying Law, ArsTechnica (Feb. 26, 2013)
- David Kravets, Supreme Court Thwarts Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance, Wired, (Feb. 26, 2013)
- Matt Sledge, Clapper v. Amnesty International, Warrantless Wiretapping Challenge, Struck Down By Supreme Court, Huff. Post (Feb. 26, 2013)
- Lyle Denniston, Opinion Recap: Global Wiretap Challenge Thwarted, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 26, 2013)
- Orin Kerr, Oral Argument in Clapper v. Amnesty International, Volokh Conspiracy (Oct. 29, 2012).
- David Kravets, All Three Branches Agree, Big Brother Is the New Normal, Wired (Oct. 29, 2012).
- Jim Harper, The Fourth Amendment in the Supreme Court This Week, Cato@Liberty (Oct. 29, 2012).
- Debra Cassens Weiss, Supreme Court to Consider Right to Sue in Challenge to Wiretap Law, ABA Journal (Oct. 29, 2012).
- Steven D. Schwinn, Government Faces Skeptical Court on Standing to Challenge FISA Amendments, Constitutional Prof Blog (Oct. 29, 2012).
- Josh Gerstein, SCOTUS Reveal Little on Leanings in Surveillance Case, Politico (Oct. 29, 2012).
- Jameel Jaffer & Alexander Abdo, Flaw in the Government's Logic on Wiretapping, CNN Opinion (Oct. 29, 2012).
- Lyle Denniston, Argument Recap: Sensitive to the Lawyers' Dilemma, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 29, 2012).
- Kali Borkoski, Suing Over Surveillance Secrets, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 29, 2012).
- Steve Vladeck, More on Clapper and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Exception, Lawfare (May 23, 2012).
- Steve Vladeck, Why Clapper Matters: The Future of Programmatic Surveillance, Lawfare (May 22, 2012).
- Lyle Denniston, Narrow review of global wiretaps, SCOTUSblog (May 21, 2012, 12:01 PM).
- Jonathan H. Adler Court to Consider Standing to Challenge FISA Surveillance, The Volokh Conspiracy (May 21, 2012).
- Orin Kerr, Second Circuit Divides 6-6 on Rehearing Standing Case to Challenge FISA Amendments Act, Volokh Conspiracy (Sept. 22, 2011, 11:08 AM).
- Orin Kerr, Amnesty International USA v. Clapper and Standing to Challenge Secret Surveillance Regimes, Volokh Conspiracy (Mar. 24, 2011, 2:46 AM).
- David Kris, A Guide to the New FISA Bill, Part 1 (June 21, 2008).