From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
959 F. Supp. 2d 724 (2013)
Facts
In 2006, the National Security Agency (NSA) began collecting bulk telephone metadata from telephone service providers for every phone call originating in the United States. Bulk telephone metadata includes the telephone numbers that placed and received the call and the date, time, and length of the call, but not the content of the call or the callers’ names or addresses. The NSA’s use of the metadata was governed by an internal policy limiting the circumstances under which the metadata could be queried as well as the scope of any query. Under the policy, if a reasonable, articulable suspicion existed that a phone number—called a “seed”—was associated with a foreign terrorist organization that was the subject of an investigation, then the metadata database could be queried using the seed. The results of a query included the telephone numbers that had been in contact with the seed and the dates, times, and durations of the calls, but not the names of those associated with the telephone numbers. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (plaintiff) filed suit, seeking to enjoin the NSA from collecting bulk telephone metadata and claiming that the NSA’s collection program violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pauley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
