Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA
{{short description|Lawsuit against the U.S. National Security Agency}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{italic title}}
{{Infobox United States District Court Case
| name = Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA
| full name = Wikimedia Foundation, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al.
| court = United States District Court for the District of Maryland
|image = DistrictCourtMarylandSeal.png
|imagesize =
| caption =
| counsel for plaintiff= American Civil Liberties Union, Cooley LLP
| plaintiff = Wikimedia Foundation, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, PEN American Center, Global Fund for Women, The Nation, Rutherford Institute, Washington Office on Latin America
| defendant = National Security Agency / Central Security Service, United States Department of Justice, Adm. Michael S. Rogers in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Daniel R. Coats in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence, and Jefferson B. Sessions III in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States
| date decided =
| citations = No. 15-2560
| transcripts =
| judge = T. S. Ellis III{{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/wikimedia-v-nsa-d-md-opinion |title=Wikimedia v. NSA - D. Md. Opinion | American Civil Liberties Union |publisher=American Civil Liberties Union |website=Aclu.org |access-date=2015-10-26 |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304052405/https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/wikimedia-v-nsa-d-md-opinion |url-status=live }}
| prior actions = Dismissal of all plaintiffs' complaints by the US District Court for the District of Maryland. Dismissal appealed by the Wikimedia Foundation
Affirmation of dismissal of 8 of the 9 plaintiffs' complaints (Wikimedia excluded) by US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Dismissal of Wikimedia Foundation's allegations concurrently vacated and remanded
| subsequent actions = Dismissal of the Wikimedia Foundation's allegations
Certiorari denied
| holding =
| keywords =
}}
Wikimedia Foundation, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al. was a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and several other organizations against the National Security Agency (NSA), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), and other named individuals, alleging mass surveillance of Wikipedia users carried out by the NSA.{{cite web|title=Wikimedia v. NSA: Challenge to Mass Surveillance Under the FISA Amendments Act|url=https://www.aclu.org/national-security/wikimedia-v-nsa|website=aclu.org|publisher=American Civil Liberties Union|access-date=March 10, 2015|archive-date=March 28, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150328173416/https://www.aclu.org/national-securty/wikimedia-v-nsa|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/|title=Wikimedia v. NSA: Wikimedia Foundation files suit against the NSA to challenge Upstream mass surveillance|last=Paulson|first=Michelle|date=10 March 2015|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|access-date=10 March 2015|archive-date=March 10, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150310110850/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/|url-status=live}}{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wikipedia-users.html?_r=0 |title=Stop Spying on Wikipedia Users |last1=Wales |first1=Jimmy |last2=Tretikov |first2=Lila |newspaper=New York Times |date=2015-03-10 |access-date=10 March 2015 |archive-date=August 13, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170813031306/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wikipedia-users.html?_r=0 |url-status=live }} The suit claims the surveillance system, which NSA calls "Upstream", breaches the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland as the NSA is based in Fort Meade, Maryland.David Ingram, [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-wikipedia-idUSKBN0M60YA20150310 NSA sued by Wikimedia, rights groups over mass surveillance] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230319011051/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-wikipedia-idUSKBN0M60YA20150310 |date=March 19, 2023 }}, Reuters (March 10, 2015). The suit was dismissed in October 2015 by Judge T. S. Ellis III; this decision was appealed four months later to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by the Wikimedia Foundation. The Court of Appeals found that the dismissal was valid for all of the plaintiffs except the Foundation, whose allegations the court found "plausible" enough to have legal standing for the case to be remanded to the lower court.
In further rulings, the District Court, Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court (in declining to hear the case and invoking the state secrets privilege), ruled for the NSA, ending the litigation.
Plaintiffs
The original plaintiffs besides the Wikimedia Foundation were the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International USA, the PEN American Center, the Global Fund for Women, The Nation magazine,{{cite magazine|title=Why 'The Nation' Is Suing the Federal Government|url=http://www.thenation.com/article/203113/why-nation-suing-federal-government|website=thenation.com|date=31 March 2015|publisher=The Nation|access-date=April 2, 2015|archive-date=July 3, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150703092623/http://www.thenation.com/article/203113/why-nation-suing-federal-government|url-status=live}} the Rutherford Institute, and the Washington Office on Latin America.{{cite web | title = ACLU, Wikimedia file lawsuit challenging NSA mass surveillance | agency = Reuters | work = Reuters | date = 2015-03-10 | access-date = 2015-03-10 | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-wikipedia-idUSKBN0M60YA20150310 | archive-date = March 19, 2023 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20230319011051/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-wikipedia-idUSKBN0M60YA20150310 | url-status = live }}{{cite news|last1=Lomas|first1=Natasha|title=Wikimedia Sues NSA Over Mass Surveillance|url=https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/10/wikimedia-sues-nsa-over-mass-surveillance/|access-date=11 March 2015|date=10 March 2015|work=TechCrunch|archive-date=September 8, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170908201920/https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/10/wikimedia-sues-nsa-over-mass-surveillance/|url-status=live}}
Background
File:Why are we interested in HTTP.png
Upstream surveillance was first revealed in May 2013 by Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst.{{cite web|last1=Schneider|first1=Marc|title=Wikimedia vs NSA: ACLU Files Lawsuit to End Spy Agency's 'Upstream Surveillance'|url=http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6495135/wikimedia-nsa-aclu-lawsuit-upstream-surveillance|website=billboard.com|date=10 March 2015|publisher=Billboard|access-date=March 11, 2015|archive-date=March 14, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150314022724/http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6495135/wikimedia-nsa-aclu-lawsuit-upstream-surveillance|url-status=live}} A previous challenge by the ACLU, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, failed for lack of standing. In the light of some of the leaks by Snowden, which included an above Top Secret NSA slide that specifically referred to Wikipedia as a target for HTTP surveillance, the Wikimedia Foundation pushed forward with a legal complaint against the NSA for violating its users' First and Fourth Amendment rights.{{cite news|last1=Cohn|first1=Carolyn|title=Wikipedia feels 'targeted' by NSA, co-founder says|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-wikipedia-idUSKBN0M723120150311|website=reuters.com|agency=Reuters|archive-date=September 24, 2021|access-date=July 5, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210924094538/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nsa-wikipedia-idUSKBN0M723120150311|url-status=live}}
Since Clapper, the government itself has confirmed many of the key facts about NSA's Upstream surveillance, including that it conducts suspicionless searches.{{cite web|author1=Geoff Brigham|author2=Michelle Paulson|title=Wikimedia v. NSA: Standing and the Fight for Free Speech and Privacy|url=http://justsecurity.org/21589/wikimedia-v-nsa-fight-free-speech-privacy-open-collaboration/|website=just security.org|date=30 March 2015|publisher=Just Security|access-date=March 31, 2015|archive-date=September 24, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210924095314/https://www.justsecurity.org/21589/wikimedia-v-nsa-fight-free-speech-privacy-open-collaboration/|url-status=live}} ACLU attorney Patrick Toomey noted the lawsuit is particularly relevant as the plaintiffs engage in "hundreds of billions of international communications" annually. Any program of Upstream surveillance must necessarily sweep up a substantial part of these communications.{{cite news|last1=Gass|first1=Nick|title=Wikimedia sues NSA, DOJ over mass surveillance|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/wikimedia-sues-nsa-justice-department-115932.html|access-date=11 March 2015|work=Politico|date=10 March 2015|archive-date=March 12, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150312012142/http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/wikimedia-sues-nsa-justice-department-115932.html|url-status=live}}
Litigation
{{NSA surveillance|Lawsuits}}
On August 6, 2015, the defendants (National Security Agency, et al.) brought a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs have not plausibly shown that they have been injured by Upstream collection of data and thus lack standing to sue. In response, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of libraries and booksellers.{{cite web|last1=Crocker|first1=Andrew|title=EFF Asks Court on Behalf of Libraries and Booksellers to Recognize Readers' Right to Be Free of NSA's Online Surveillance|date=3 September 2015|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/eff-asks-court-behalf-libraries-and-booksellers-recognize-readers-right-be-free|publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation|access-date=September 4, 2015|archive-date=January 2, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220102192935/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/eff-asks-court-behalf-libraries-and-booksellers-recognize-readers-right-be-free|url-status=live}} Both sides presented oral arguments at a hearing on September 25, 2015.{{cite web |author=Nicky Woolf |title=Court hears first arguments in case challenging bulk data collection by NSA |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/25/first-arguments-case-challenging-bulk-data-collection-nsa |newspaper=The Guardian |date=25 September 2015 |access-date=11 October 2015 |archive-date=March 9, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220309072358/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/25/first-arguments-case-challenging-bulk-data-collection-nsa |url-status=live }}
On October 23, 2015, the District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the suit on grounds of standing. US District Judge T. S. Ellis III ruled that the plaintiffs could not plausibly prove they were subject to Upstream surveillance, echoing the 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International US.{{cite web|last1=Farivar|first1=Cyrus|title=Judge tosses Wikimedia's anti-NSA lawsuit because Wikipedia isn't big enough|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/judge-tosses-wikimedias-anti-nsa-lawsuit-because-wikipedia-isnt-big-enough|website=Ars Technica|date=23 October 2015|access-date=June 15, 2017|archive-date=June 21, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220621234420/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/judge-tosses-wikimedias-anti-nsa-lawsuit-because-wikipedia-isnt-big-enough/|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=Wikimedia v. NSA - D. MD. Opinion|url=https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/wikimedia-v-nsa-d-md-opinion|publisher=ACLU|access-date=October 24, 2015|archive-date=March 4, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304052405/https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/wikimedia-v-nsa-d-md-opinion|url-status=live}} The Wikimedia Foundation said it expected to appeal the decision. The Foundation said its complaint had merit, and that there was no question that Upstream surveillance captured the communications of both its user community and the Wikimedia Foundation itself.{{cite web|author1=Michelle Paulson, Geoff Brigham|title=District court grants government's motion to dismiss Wikimedia v. NSA, appeal expected|date=23 October 2015|url=http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|access-date=October 24, 2015|archive-date=October 25, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151025003923/http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/|url-status=live}} The Electronic Frontier Foundation, who had filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, said it was perverse to dismiss a suit for lack of proof (standing) when the surveillance program complained of was secret, and urged federal courts to tackle the serious constitutional issues that Upstream surveillance presents.{{cite web|last1=Rumold|first1=Mark|title=Wikimedia v. NSA: Another Court Blinds Itself to Mass NSA Surveillance|date=29 October 2015|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/wikimedia-v-nsa-another-court-blinds-itself-mass-nsa-surveillance|publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation|access-date=October 30, 2015|archive-date=March 20, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220320211037/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/wikimedia-v-nsa-another-court-blinds-itself-mass-nsa-surveillance|url-status=live}} The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on February 17, 2016.{{cite web|title=Appeal No. 15-2560. Brief for plaintiffs–appellants|url=https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/23._aclu_appeal_brief_2.17.2016.pdf|publisher=ACLU|date=February 17, 2016|access-date=March 5, 2016|archive-date=March 12, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160312225445/https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/23._aclu_appeal_brief_2.17.2016.pdf|url-status=live}}
On May 23, 2017, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal by the lower court of Wikimedia's complaints.{{cite news|last1=Stempel|first1=Jonathan|title=Wikipedia can pursue NSA surveillance lawsuit: U.S. appeals court|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikipedia-nsa-idUSKBN18J206|access-date=24 May 2017|work=Reuters|date=23 May 2017|archive-date=February 9, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220209222532/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikipedia-nsa-idUSKBN18J206|url-status=live}} The Court of Appeals ruled that the Foundation's allegations of the NSA's Fourth Amendment violations were plausible enough to "survive a facial challenge to standing", finding that the potential harm done by the NSA's collection of private data was not speculative. The court thereby remanded the suit by the Foundation and ordered the District Court of Maryland to continue the proceedings.{{cite news|last1=Nelson|first1=Steven|title=Appeals Court: Wikimedia Can Fight NSA's 'Not Speculative' Internet Surveillance|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-05-23/appeals-court-wikimedia-can-fight-nsas-not-speculative-internet-surveillance|access-date=24 May 2017|work=U.S. News & World Report|date=23 May 2017|archive-date=October 21, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191021200550/https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-05-23/appeals-court-wikimedia-can-fight-nsas-not-speculative-internet-surveillance|url-status=live}} The court inversely affirmed the dismissal by Ellis of the suits by the other plaintiffs; in its finding the court noted that the non-Wikimedia plaintiffs had not made a strong enough case that their operations were affected by Upstream's scope.{{cite news|last1=Savage|first1=Charlie|title=Federal Court Revives Wikimedia's Challenge to N.S.A. Surveillance|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/us/politics/nsa-surveillance-warrantless-wikimedia.html|access-date=24 May 2017|work=The New York Times|date=23 May 2017|archive-date=January 3, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200103233335/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/us/politics/nsa-surveillance-warrantless-wikimedia.html|url-status=live}}{{cite web|last1=Buatti|first1=Jim|last2=Palmer|first2=Aeryn|title=Victory at the Fourth Circuit: Court of Appeals allows Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA to proceed|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/|website=Wikimedia Blog|access-date=23 May 2017|date=23 May 2017|archive-date=January 3, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200103155443/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/|url-status=live}}
On December 16, 2019, the District Court held that the Wikimedia Foundation did not have standing to proceed with its claims. On February 14, 2020, the Wikimedia Foundation filed a notice of appeal in this case before the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.{{cite web |last1=Buatti |first1=Jim |last2=Palmer |first2=Aeryn |title=District Court rules for government in Wikimedia Foundation's mass surveillance case against the NSA |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/12/17/district-court-rules-for-government-in-wikimedia-foundations-mass-surveillance-case-against-the-nsa/ |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation |access-date=28 January 2020 |date=17 December 2019 |archive-date=February 9, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220209225021/https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/12/17/district-court-rules-for-government-in-wikimedia-foundations-mass-surveillance-case-against-the-nsa/ |url-status=live }} The appeal was heard in March 2021{{cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq77qTHnrXc&t=630s |time=10:30 |work=United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit |via=YouTube |title=Remote Oral Arguments (Panel III) - 2:00PM Friday 3/12/2021 |date=March 12, 2021 |access-date=June 1, 2021 |archive-date=June 2, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602220341/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq77qTHnrXc&t=630s |url-status=live }} and once again dismissed in September of the same year.{{Cite news| last = Singh| first = Kanishka| title = U.S. court upholds dismissal of lawsuit against NSA on 'state secrets' grounds| work = Reuters| accessdate = 2021-09-20| date = 2021-09-16| url = https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-court-upholds-dismissal-suit-against-nsa-state-secrets-grounds-2021-09-16/| archive-date = February 9, 2022| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220209215818/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-court-upholds-dismissal-suit-against-nsa-state-secrets-grounds-2021-09-16/| url-status = live}}
In February 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.{{cite news |last1=Chung |first1=Andrew |title=U.S. Supreme Court snubs Wikipedia bid to challenge NSA surveillance |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikipedia-bid-challenge-nsa-surveillance-2023-02-21/ |access-date=22 February 2023 |work=Reuters |date=21 February 2023 |language=en |archive-date=March 31, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331122353/https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikipedia-bid-challenge-nsa-surveillance-2023-02-21/ |url-status=live }}
See also
References
{{Reflist|35em}}
External links
- [https://www.aclu.org/national-security/wikimedia-v-nsa Wikimedia v NSA] infopage from ACLU
- [https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/wikimedia_v2c_nsa_-_complaint.pdf Complaint] from ACLU
- Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency FAQ
- [https://www.aclu.org/files/natsec/nsa/20140722/Why%20Are%20We%20Interested%20in%20HTTP.pdf NSA – Why Are We Interested in HTTP?] (slide revealed by Edward Snowden showing Wikipedia as a surveillance target)
{{Wikimedia Foundation}}
Category:2015 in United States case law
Category:Wikimedia Foundation litigation
Category:American Civil Liberties Union litigation
Category:Mass surveillance litigation
Category:United States privacy case law
Category:United States District Court for the District of Maryland cases