Case

Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
1 of
1 21
of 21

1 PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
2 CARL J. NICHOLS
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
3 DOUGLAS N. LETTER
Terrorism Litigation Counsel
4 JOSEPH H. HUNT
Director, Federal Programs Branch
5 ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Special Litigation Counsel
6 Email: [email protected]
ANDREW H. TANNENBAUM
7 Trial Attorney
Email: [email protected]
8 U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
9 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. 6102
Washington, D.C. 20001
10 Phone: (202) 514-4782/(202) 514-4263
Fax: (202) 616-8460
11 Attorneys for Defendants
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
15 ) No. M:06-cv-01791-VRW
IN RE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY )
16 TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS ) DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL
LITIGATION ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
17 ) MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR
_______________________________________) SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN Center for
18 ) Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-1115)
This Document Relates Only To: )
19 ) Judge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush, ) Date: August 9, 2007
20 (Case No. 07-1115) ) Time: 2 p.m.
) Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor
21 )
)
22 _______________________________________)
23
24
25
26
27
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
2 of
2 21
of 21

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 PAGE
3 (U) INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
4 (U) BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5 A. (U) Plaintiffs’ Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6 B. (U) The Parties’ Dispositive Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7 C. (U) Intervening FISA Court Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 (U) ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9 A. (U) The FISA Court Orders Underscore that Plaintiffs Cannot
Establish their Standing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10
B. (U) The Mootness Doctrine Also Requires Dismissal of This
11 Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12 C. (U) Plaintiffs’ Claims on the Merits Cannot Be Sustained Because
the Challenged Surveillance is Subject to FISA Court Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13
D. (U) The States Secrets Privilege Continues to Preclude
14 Adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
15 (U) CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
i
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
3 of
3 21
of 21

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 PAGE(S)
3 Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6 Center for Biological Diversity v. Lohn, 483 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13, 14
7 Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Energy, 627 F.2d 289 (D.C. Cir. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9 Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10 Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives,
525 U.S. 316 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11
Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt’l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) . . . . . . . . 13
13
Gator.com Corp. v. LL Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
14
Gest v. Bradbury, 443 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10, 12
15
Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
16
Halkin v. Helms, 598 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
17
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
18
INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
19
Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
20
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
21
Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
22
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10
23
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
24
Native Vill. of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 14
25
Nat’l Black Police Ass’n v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 346 (D.C. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . 14
26
North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
27
28 Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
ii
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
4 of
4 21
of 21

1 O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3 Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 Smith v. University of Washington Law School, 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5 Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Smith, 110 F.3d 724 (10th Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6 Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101 (1944) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7 Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8 Super Tire Eng’g Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115 (1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9 United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10 Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11 Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12
STATUTES
13
50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
iii
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
5 of
5 21
of 21

1 (U) INTRODUCTION
2 (U) Plaintiffs in this action—the Center for Constitutional Rights (“CCR”) and
3 several of its legal staff members—challenge a foreign intelligence surveillance program that, as
4 set forth below, is no longer operative. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge a program described by
5 the President in December 2005, pursuant to which the National Security Agency (“NSA”)
6 targeted the content of international communications to or from the United States where one
7 party was reasonably believed to be a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist
8 organization. See Complaint ¶ 27.1 Plaintiffs allege that this program—which the Government
9 referred to as the Terrorist Surveillance Program or “TSP”2—was unlawful because it authorized
10 electronic surveillance without statutory authorization and in violation of the Foreign
11 Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq., and the United States
12 Constitution. See Compl. ¶ 46.
13 (U) Prior to the transfer of this action to this Court, the parties filed respective
14 dispositive motions. Defendants moved to dismiss the action or, in the alternative, for summary
15 judgment, because Plaintiffs lack standing on the face of their Complaint and because, in any
16 event, further proceedings would inherently require the disclosure of classified information over
17 which the Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”) asserted the state secrets privilege. See Dkt.
18 No. 1 (07-1115), Item Nos. 12-16. In support of that motion and privilege assertion, Defendants
19 submitted unclassified and classified briefs, as well as unclassified and classified declarations of
20 the Director of National Intelligence and the Signals Intelligence Director of the NSA.3
21
22
1
(U) The electronic docket for the CCR case in this MDL proceeding is available under
23 Civil Action No. 07-1115, and the Complaint in this action is at Dkt. No. 1, Item No. 1.
24 2
(U) Plaintiffs refer to this activity as the “NSA Surveillance Program.” See Compl.
25 ¶ 27. This brief will use the Government’s term for this activity—the TSP.
3
26 (U) The classified materials, further listed in n.6, infra, were lodged with the Court
Security Officer for in camera, ex parte review in proceedings before the Southern District of
27 New York, and are similarly available for this Court’s review.
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
6 of
6 21
of 21

1 Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the theory that the lawfulness of the
2 TSP could be decided based solely on the public record. See id., Item Nos. 5-6, 8-9.4 Both of
3 these motions have been pending since the transferor court held oral argument in September
4 2006.
5 (U) This supplemental memorandum addresses an intervening judicial event that
6 further requires dismissal of this case. As Defendants notified this Court on January 11, 2007,
7 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISA Court” or “FISC”) issued orders on January
8 10, 2007 authorizing the Government to target for collection international communications into
9 or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the parties to the
10 communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization. See
11 Dkt. 127-1 (MDL-1791). In light of these intervening FISA Court orders, any electronic
12 surveillance that was occurring as part of the TSP is now being conducted subject to the approval
13 of the FISA Court, and the President has decided not to reauthorize the TSP. See id.
14 Accordingly, the essential predicate for Plaintiffs’ claims and request for relief no longer exists.
15 (U) As explained below, whether viewed as an issue of standing or mootness under
16 the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III, or a matter that goes to the underlying
17 merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, the FISA Court orders reinforce and independently compel the
18 conclusion that this suit—which seeks only prospective relief concerning the TSP—must be
19 dismissed. The fact that the TSP is no longer in place confirms that Plaintiffs do not have
20 standing to seek prospective relief. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ claim that the TSP caused a chilling
21 effect on their activities, already insufficient on the face of the Complaint, certainly cannot be
22 sustained in the absence of the TSP. Alternatively, the mootness doctrine requires dismissal
23 where, as here, the challenged activity is no longer in place and no exception to that doctrine
24
25 4
(U) On May 24, 2007, the parties in this case filed a stipulation proposing an August
26 9, 2007 hearing for their pending dispositive motions and a schedule for supplemental briefing.
See Dkt. No. 289-1 (MDL-1791). The Court has not yet entered that schedule, but Defendants
27 file this supplemental memorandum in accordance with that stipulation.
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
2
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
7 of
7 21
of 21

1 applies or could be adjudicated in light of the state secrets privilege.

2 (U) Assuming that a valid jurisdictional basis remains, Plaintiffs’ underlying claims
3 on the merits also necessarily fail where the challenged activity is now occurring under FISA.
4 Finally, factual adjudication of any or all of these issues (standing, mootness, and the merits)
5 would require disclosure of state secrets concerning the surveillance authorized by the President,
6 or the surveillance now authorized by the FISC, and could not proceed without causing
7 exceptionally grave harm to the national security.
8 (U) BACKGROUND
9 A. (U) Plaintiffs’ Claims
10 (U) In contrast to other actions pending before this Court, including the Hepting,
11 Verizon and Shubert cases, Plaintiffs in CCR do not allege that the NSA undertakes a “dragnet”
12 of content surveillance. Rather, Plaintiffs allege that they are subject to, and have been subjected
13 to, the particular NSA surveillance program described by the President in December 2005 (i.e.,
14 the TSP), pursuant to which he authorized the NSA to intercept the content of certain
15 communications where there are reasonable grounds to believe that (1) the communication
16 originated or terminated outside the United States, and (2) a party to such communication is a
17 member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. See Press Conference of
18 President Bush (Dec. 19, 2005); see also Compl. ¶ 27. Plaintiffs allege that they represent
19 individuals who have been detained or investigated for terrorism-related matters, including
20 alleged al Qaeda suspects, and that their communications with clients, counsel, witnesses, and
21 other persons thus “fit within the criteria” of the TSP. See CCR Complaint ¶¶ 35-40; see also id.
22 ¶¶ 3-4 (Plaintiffs’ clients, including detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, “are within the
23 class of people the government has described as the targets of the warrantless NSA surveillance
24 program challenged here”).
25 (U) Plaintiffs raise two distinct allegations of injury. First, Plaintiffs allege that the
26 mere revelation of the existence of the TSP impaired their ability to communicate with their
27 overseas clients, witnesses, and other persons by telephone or email “out of fear that their
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
3
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
8 of
8 21
of 21

1 privileged communications are being and will be overheard” by the program. Compl. ¶ 42.
2 Plaintiffs allege that, once apprised that the TSP existed, the “risk that their conversations are
3 being overheard” has forced them “to institute protective measures to reduce the potential impact
4 of such surveillance on the representation of their clients . . . .” Id.; see also id. ¶ 6 (alleging that
5 the secretive nature of the surveillance program, combined with Defendants’ admission that it is
6 targeted at persons alleged to have some connection to al Qaeda or groups that support al Qaeda,
7 has “inhibited Plaintiffs’ ability to represent their clients vigorously”). Second, Plaintiffs also
8 alleged a direct injury—namely that their attorney-client communications “have been and
9 continue to be intercepted” by the TSP. Id. ¶ 43; see also id. ¶ 5.5
10 (U) Based on these claimed injuries, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief
11 and raise four distinct claims. First, they allege that the TSP unlawfully authorizes electronic
12 surveillance outside of the FISA and, thus, is without statutory authorization in violation of the
13 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702. See Compl. ¶ 46. Second, Plaintiffs allege that
14 Defendants, by carrying out the TSP, have acted in excess of the President’s Article II authority
15 by acting in contravention of FISA. See id. ¶ 48. Third, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have
16 carried out unreasonable surveillance of Plaintiffs’ private telephone and email communications
17 under the TSP without probable cause or warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See id.
18 ¶ 50. Fourth, Plaintiffs allege that, “by carrying out and or asserting the right to carry out” the
19 TSP, Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ rights of free expression and association under the
20 First Amendment. See id. ¶ 52.
21 B. (U) The Parties’ Dispositive Motions
22 (U) While the case was pending before the Southern District of New York, the parties
23 each filed dispositive motions. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the grounds
24
25 5
(U) Plaintiffs have largely abandoned their claim of actual surveillance and argue that
26 they have standing based on their chilling effect theory “regardless of whether Plaintiffs are
actually being wiretapped.” See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for
27 Summary Judgment (“Pls. Opp.”) (Dkt. No. 1 (07-1115), Item No. 20 at 32-33).
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
4
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
9 of
9 21
of 21

1 that the merits of their legal challenge to the TSP could be resolved based solely on the facts
2 available on the public record. See Dkt. No. 1 (07-1115), Item Nos. 5-6, 8-9. Defendants moved
3 to dismiss or for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 1 (07-1115) Item Nos. 12-16.6 In that
4 motion, Defendants demonstrated first that Plaintiffs’ allegation of a “chilling effect” is
5 insufficient on the face of the Complaint to establish standing under Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1
6 (1972). See Defs. MSJ Mem. at 18-24; Defs. Reply at 4-9. Moreover, even if their allegations
7 of injury were sufficiently pled, Plaintiffs’ standing could not be adjudicated as a factual matter
8 without state secrets describing the operation of the program. In particular, with respect to their
9 claim of actual surveillance, Plaintiffs could not establish standing because the facts needed to
10 determine whether or not they have been subject to surveillance under the TSP are classified and
11 properly protected by the state secrets privilege. See Halkin v. Helms, 598 F.2d 1, 8-9 (D.C. Cir.
12
13 6
(U) Defendants filed the following documents in support of their motion to dismiss or
14 for summary judgment, the public versions of which are now accessible through the electronic
filings in this proceeding under Civil Action No. 07-1115: (1) Memorandum in Support of
15 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (“Defs. MSJ Mem.”), Dkt. No. 1,
Item No. 15; (2) Public Declaration of John D. Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, id,
16
Item No. 13; (3) Public Declaration of Major General Richard J. Quirk, Signals Intelligence
17 Director, National Security Agency, id., Item No. 14; (4) Defendants’ Reply in Support of
Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (“Defs. Reply”), id., Item No. 24. Defendants also
18 made the following classified submissions in support of its motions for the Court’s in camera, ex
parte review: (1) In Camera, Ex Parte Classified Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
19
Support of the United States’ Assertion of the Military and State Secrets Privilege; Defendants’
20 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment; Defendants’ Motion to
Stay Consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) In Camera, Ex Parte,
21 Classified Declaration of John D. Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence; and (3) In
Camera, Ex Parte Classified Declaration of Major General Richard J. Quirk, Signals Intelligence
22
Director, National Security Agency. The electronic docket for Civil Action No. 07-1115 omits
23 the public notices of lodging that Defendants filed in the Southern District of New York to
reflect that fact of each of these classified filings. Accordingly, Defendants have filed separate
24 notices of lodging in this MDL proceeding for these materials, which are available for this
Court’s in camera, ex parte review upon request from the Court Security Officers. In addition,
25
Defendants have also filed in this MDL proceeding an additional classified Declaration of Lt.
26 Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency, for the Court’s in
camera, ex parte review. See Notice of Lodging of Classified Declaration of Lt. Gen. Keith B.
27 Alexander, Director, National Security Agency (dated June 8, 2007).
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
5
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
1010
of 21
of 21

1 1978); see Defs. MSJ Mem. at 24-27; Defs. Reply at 9-10.

2 (U) Assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiffs could factually establish their standing and
3 the Court’s jurisdiction to proceed, Defendants explained that adjudication of the merits of their
4 challenge to the TSP would inherently require the disclosure of a range of classified information
5 as to which the Director of National Intelligence has properly asserted the state secrets privilege
6 in this case, including facts that would confirm or deny whether the Plaintiffs were subject to
7 surveillance under the TSP, as well as facts concerning the operation of the TSP and the specific
8 nature of the al Qaeda threat that it sought to address. See Defs MSJ Mem. at 27-47; Defs. Reply
9 at 34-43; see also Public and Classified Declarations of John D. Negroponte, Director of
10 National Intelligence and Major General Richard J. Quirk, Signals Intelligence Director,
11 National Security Agency. In particular, if this case proceeded to the merits, state secrets
12 demonstrating precisely what the TSP entailed, and why those activities were reasonable and
13 necessary to meet the al Qaeda theat, would be essential to any determination as to whether the
14 TSP was within the President’s statutory and constitutional authority, but could not be disclosed
15 without causing exceptionally grave harm to national security.
16 (U) Finally, at the time the parties’ dispositive motions were filed, Defendants also
17 demonstrated that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment could not be adjudicated
18 before the state secrets issues raised in Defendants’ motions were resolved. See Defs. MSJ
19 Mem. at 51-52; Defs. Reply at 50-54. Defendants’ motions put at issue not only whether the
20 case could proceed at all, but whether and to what extent any evidence would be available to
21 respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. Unless the state secrets issues are
22 resolved first, Defendants would be forced into the untenable choice of either adjudicating the
23 merits without the evidence required to decide the case or disclosing state secrets in order to
24 defend against Plaintiffs’ claims. See id.
25 (U) While Defendants fully adhere to their prior position on these issues, the
26 circumstances of this case have changed substantially in the interim. As set forth further below,
27 the challenged program is no longer in place and, thus, another ground for dismissing this case
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
6
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
1111
of 21
of 21

1 now exists.
2 C. (U) Intervening FISA Court Orders
3 (U) On January 17, 2007, the Attorney General sent a public letter to Senate Judiciary
4 Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter (filed with this Court the same day)
5 advising them that “on January 10, 2007, a Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
6 issued orders authorizing the Government to target for collection international communications
7 into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the
8 communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.” See
9 Dkt. 127-1(MDL-1791). As a result of these orders, “any electronic surveillance that was
10 occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the
11 approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.” See id. The letter elaborated that,
12 “[a]though, as we have previously explained, the [TSP] fully complies with the law, the orders
13 the Government has obtained will allow the necessary speed and agility while providing
14 substantial advantages.” Id. “Accordingly,” the letter concluded, “under these circumstances,
15 the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the
16 current authorization expires.” Id. at 1-2.
17 (U) On February 22, 2007, the United States filed a public Declaration of Lt. Gen.
18 Keith B. Alexander, Director of the NSA, which echoed the Attorney General’s statement that
19 any electronic surveillance that was conducted under the TSP is now being conducted subject to
20 the approval of the FISA Court, and that the President has determined not to reauthorize the TSP,
21 which is no longer operative. See Dkt. 175 (MDL-1791). Also on February 22, 2007, the United
22 States filed a classified declaration by Lt. Gen. Alexander for the Court’s in camera, ex parte
23 review. See Dkt. No. 176-1 (MDL-1791). Further details regarding the proceedings of the FISA
24 Court cannot be publicly disclosed, including the number, nature, and contents of the January
25 2007 orders.
26 [REDACTED TEXT]
27
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
7
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
1212
of 21
of 21

1 (U) ARGUMENT
2 (U) The central premise upon which Plaintiffs’ case is built no longer exists. In this
3 action for prospective relief only, Plaintiffs allege that the surveillance activities conducted
4 under the TSP are applicable to them and are unlawful because they were carried out under the
5 authorization of the President, but “without statutory authorization.” See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 23-25, 46.
6 On this basis, Plaintiffs claim that the challenged surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment
7 (and, derivatively, the First Amendment), FISA itself, and, for the same reasons, the separation
8 of powers. See Compl. ¶¶ 45-52; see also Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
9 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 1 (07-1115) Item No. 6.
10 (U) After the January FISA Court orders, however, any electronic surveillance that
11 was occurring as part of the TSP is now being conducted subject to the approval of the FISA
12 Court, and the President has determined not to reauthorize the TSP. See Public Alexander Decl.
13 ¶¶ 3-4, Dkt. 175 (MDL1791). This eliminates the challenged activity at issue in each of
14 Plaintiffs’ claims, and there is no longer any appropriate basis for proceeding with this litigation.
15 The Supreme Court has stressed that federal courts must avoid needlessly addressing serious
16 constitutional issues, see, e.g., INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 299-300 (2001), and should proceed
17 with special caution where the President’s war powers are implicated, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,
18 542 U.S. 507, 539 (2004) (plurality opinion). These considerations are especially apt here,
19 where litigating this action would require both delving into extremely sensitive state secrets and
20 possibly deciding the extraordinarily important constitutional issue regarding the scope of the
21 President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance in
22 wartime.
23 (U) As set forth in Defendants’ prior submissions, several different legal doctrines
24 require dismissal of this case. In addition, the developments before the FISA Court underscore
25 the Government’s position on a range of issues, including that Plaintiffs’ allegation of a chilling
26 effect is insufficient on the face of the Complaint and that this case cannot go forward in light of
27 the state secrets privilege because it is not possible to evaluate fully the Plaintiffs’ claims without
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
8
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
1313
of 21
of 21

1 delving into state secrets. The operation of the state secrets privilege therefore, by itself,
2 continues to require dismissal of this action.
3 A. (U) The FISA Court Orders Underscore that Plaintiffs Cannot
Establish their Standing.
4
(U) The FISA Court orders underscore that Plaintiffs cannot establish their standing
5
to sue under either the injury, causation, or redressability prongs of the standing inquiry, and that
6
the case must be dismissed for this reason. Wholly apart from the state secrets privilege issue,
7
which renders it impossible to adjudicate whether or not Plaintiffs were actually subject to
8
surveillance under that program, the fact that the TSP is no longer in effect confirms Plaintiffs’
9
lack of standing.7
10
(U) To have standing, a plaintiff’s alleged injury must be “concrete” and “actual or
11
imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990)
12
(quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-02 (1983)). Even where a plaintiff
13
alleges that his rights were violated in the past, he lacks standing to obtain prospective relief
14
absent a “real and immediate threat” that he will suffer the same injury in the future. Id. at 105.
15
Alleged “past wrongs do not in themselves amount to that real and immediate threat of injury
16
necessary to make out a case or controversy.” Id. at 103 (citing O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S.
17
488, 494 (1974) and Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 372 (1976)). This “imminence requirement
18
ensures that courts do not entertain suits based on speculative or hypothetical harms.” Lujan v.
19
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992). Thus, a plaintiff “who has been subject to
20
injurious conduct of one kind [does not] possess by virtue of that injury the necessary stake in
21
litigating conduct of another kind, although similar, to which he has not been subject.” Blum v.
22
Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 999 (1982). Rather, Plaintiffs here must “demonstrate that they are
23
‘realistically threatened by a repetition of the [alleged] violation.’” Gest v. Bradbury, 443 F.3d
24
25 7
(U) The fact that plaintiffs have also sought declaratory relief does not affect this
26 determination. “The limitations that Article III imposes upon federal court jurisdiction are not
relaxed in the declaratory judgment context.” Gator.com Corp. v. LL Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125,
27 1129 (9th Cir. 2005).
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
9
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
1414
of 21
of 21

1 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2006).

2 (U) Accordingly, and apart from whether or not Plaintiffs were ever within the scope
3 of the TSP or actually surveilled under that program when it was in place (facts that cannot be
4 established without state secrets), the fact that the TSP has not been reauthorized renders it
5 impossible for Plaintiffs to establish an imminent threat of future injury under either their
6 “chilling effect” or direct surveillance allegations. Because Plaintiffs seek only prospective
7 relief, their claims must be dismissed because there is no basis to award such relief where the
8 challenged activity is no longer in place.8
9 (U) With respect to the alleged chilling effect of the TSP, see Compl. ¶ 42,
10 Defendants have shown that this theory provides a legally insufficient foundation upon which a
11 court may base Article III jurisdiction, see Defs. MSJ Mem. at 18-24; Defs. Reply at 4-9, and
12 this remains an independent and fully applicable ground requiring dismissal of this case. But the
13 discontinuance of the TSP further negates this theory of standing because Plaintiffs cannot
14 credibly claim any continuing chill caused by the TSP (if they ever could) where that activity has
15 now lapsed and has been supplanted by activities authorized by the FISA Court. Thus, whatever
16 alleged chilling effect the mere existence of the TSP had in the past, such alleged prior harm is
17 insufficient to support standing for prospective relief where the program is no longer in place.
18 (U) The FISA Court orders also buttress a point Defendants have previously
19 made—that Plaintiffs cannot claim to be meaningfully chilled by the mere prior existence of the
20 TSP when, under Plaintiffs’ own characterizations, they communicate with individuals (al Qaeda
21 suspects) that any reasonable person must assume could be subject to surveillance by a number
22
8
23 (U) The Supreme Court also has made clear that, in order for standing to exist, “it
must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a
24 favorable decision.’” See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights
Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 43 (1976)). But there is no likelihood that redress for Plaintiffs’ claimed
25
injuries could be obtained at this point in light of the fact that the TSP has not been reauthorized
26 and any electronic surveillance that Plaintiffs are challenging is now being conducted subject to
the approval of the FISA Court. See Public Alexander Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Dkt. 175-1 (MDL-1791).
27 Lacking redressability, plaintiffs have no standing to litigate their claims.
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
10
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
1515
of 21
of 21

1 of other means, including pursuant to FISA Court orders, overseas surveillance that falls outside
2 of FISA, or surveillance by foreign countries. See Defs. MSJ Mem. at 23-24; Defs. Reply at 8-9.
3 The fact that any electronic surveillance that was conducted as part of the TSP is now being
4 conducted subject to the approval and supervision of the FISA Court proves that very point.
5 And it certainly cannot be the case that Plaintiffs could suffer any legitimate chill from the
6 prospect of being subjected to surveillance authorized by the FISA Court. For this reason as
7 well, Plaintiffs’ standing based on an alleged chilling effect is further undermined by the FISC
8 orders.
9 (U) With respect to Plaintiffs’ allegation that their communications have been and
10 continued to be intercepted under TSP surveillance, see Compl. ¶ 43, the fact that the TSP is no
11 longer in place likewise confirms their lack of standing to seek prospective relief, since they
12 cannot currently be subject to surveillance under a program that is no longer operative.9
13 (U) Finally, if there remains any doubt that Plaintiffs lack standing in light of the
14 FISA Court orders, facts necessary to adjudicate the matter are subject to the state secrets
15 privilege. This would include whether Plaintiffs were ever subject to surveillance under the
16 TSP, as well as facts surrounding the President’s decision not reauthorize the TSP after the
17 January FISC orders. It would simply not be possible for Plaintiffs to show, or Defendants to
18 rebut, whether there is currently any “real and immediate” threat of imminent injury to Plaintiffs
19 that would warrant prospective relief, or any possible chilling effect on Plaintiffs’ activities
20 under the present circumstances, without a full exposition of what previously occurred under the
21 TSP and what is now occurring under the FISC orders.
22 [REDACTED TEXT]
23 B. (U) The Mootness Doctrine Also Requires Dismissal of This Action.
24 (U) For the same reasons that the Plaintiffs lack standing to obtain declaratory and
25
26
9
(U) Again, Plaintiffs have largely abandoned their claim of actual surveillance and
27 rely instead on their chilling effect theory of standing. See Pls.’ Opp. at at 32-33.
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
11
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
1616
of 21
of 21

1 injunctive relief, their claims are now moot. Like considerations of standing, the mootness
2 doctrine concerns whether there is an actual case or controversy sufficient for the Court to
3 exercise Article III jurisdiction. See Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983)
4 (per curiam). “Article III requires that a live controversy persists through all stages of the
5 litigation.” Gator.com Corp., 398 F.3d at 1128-29 (citing Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452,
6 459 n. 10 (1974)); see also United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980)
7 (“The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing)
8 must continue throughout its existence (mootness).”) (quotation mark omitted). If this condition
9 is not met, “the case has become moot, and its resolution is no longer within our constitutional
10 purview.” Gator.com Corp. at 1129 (citing Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 2003)
11 and Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2004)). See also Center for Biological
12 Diversity v. Lohn, 483 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2007); Smith v. University of Washington Law
13 School, 233 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1051 (2001); Native Vill. of
14 Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505, 1509 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, while the Court may decide the
15 matter as a question of standing, the mootness doctrine would also apply. See Arizonans for
16 Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997) (analyzing standing before mootness, but
17 holding that it need not resolve its “grave doubts” on standing “because the former question
18 [mootness], like the latter [standing], goes to the Article III jurisdiction of this Court and the
19 courts below”).
20 (U) Here, Plaintiffs’ challenge to the TSP is now moot. The program is no longer in
21 place, and no relief can be provided as a matter of law concerning an activity that is now
22 inoperative. Even as to a claim for declaratory relief, the test for mootness is “‘whether the facts
23 alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties
24 having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a
25 declaratory judgment.’” Center for Biological Diversity, 483 F.3d at 987; Gator.com Corp., 398
26 F.3d at 1129 (citations omitted); see also North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)
27 (standard for mootness is “whether the relief sought would, if granted, make a difference to the
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
12
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
1717
of 21
of 21

1 legal interests of the parties (as distinct from their psyches, which might remain deeply engaged
2 with the merits of the litigation)).” Where the challenged activity is no longer in place, it simply
3 cannot be said that a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests
4 continues to exist and is of such immediacy and reality to warrant judicial relief. See Center for
5 Biological Diversity, 483 F.3d at 988 (no case or controversy exists for declaratory relief where
6 the purported adverse effect is “‘so remote and speculative that there [is] no tangible prejudice to
7 the existing interests of the parties’”) (alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting Super Tire
8 Eng’g Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, at 123 (1964)).
9 (U) There is, moreover, no basis to find an exception to the mootness doctrine on the
10 ground that there has been a “voluntary cessation” of allegedly unlawful activity. See, e.g.,
11 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt’l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000).
12 An independent judicial body—the FISA Court—has now acted to provide additional and
13 sufficient legal authority for the activity that Plaintiffs challenged. The Government has not
14 terminated its conduct in response to Plaintiffs’ suit; instead, it worked with the FISA Court to
15 obtain authorization for surveillance activities that now supplant the TSP. There is nothing
16 about the Executive’s decision to pursue FISA Court approval that renders the matter a voluntary
17 cessation of the challenged conduct. See Center for Biological Diversity, 483 F.3d at 989 (no
18 voluntary cessation where the Government made a policy decision to alter a prior policy at issue
19 in the case). Rather, the Government for some time has sought FISA Court approval for
20 electronic surveillance of international communications into or out of the United States where
21 there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member of agent of al Qaeda
22 or an associated terrorist organization—and in a manner that would preserve the speed and
23 agility that the NSA needs to help protect the Nation from another terrorist attack by al Qaeda.
24 See Public Alexander Declaration ¶ 3, Dkt. 175-1 (MDL-1791). Although the President
25 determined that the TSP was lawful and in accordance with FISA and his inherent constitutional
26 authority when he authorized the program, he also has recognized that there is considerable
27 value in ensuring that all three branches supported the vital foreign intelligence gathering
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
13
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
1818
of 21
of 21

1 program at issue.
2 (U) Moreover, to the extent the question of mootness is a factual one, including
3 whether there has been any “voluntary cessation” of the alleged illegal conduct, the matter could
4 not be adjudicated properly without an exposition of facts concerning the FISA Court orders.
5 Whether a party has taken an action in response to a lawsuit depends on what actions have been
6 taken, including whether, how, and to what extent that action compares with the challenged
7 activity no longer in place.
8 [REDACTED TEXT]
9 (U) Similarly, Plaintiffs’ claims cannot proceed on the ground that the challenged
10 activity is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” See Center for Biological Diversity, 483
11 F.3d at 989; Native Vill. of Noatak, 38 F.3d at 1509. The “capable of repetition, yet evading
12 review” exception to the mootness doctrine applies only in “exceptional circumstances,” where
13 “‘(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation
14 or expiration; and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would
15 be subjected to the same action again.’” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 481
16 (1990) (citing Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982) (per curiam) (quoting Weinstein v.
17 Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975)). Plaintiffs have nothing but speculation to suggest they
18 might be subjected to surveillance under the TSP in the future. “A mere physical or theoretical
19 possibility” of repetition is not sufficient; there must be a “‘demonstrated probability’ that the
20 same controversy will recur involving the same complaining party.” Murphy, 455 U.S. at 482
21 (quoting Weinstein, 423 U.S. at 149); see also Nat’l Black Police Ass’n v. District of Columbia,
22 108 F.3d 346, 349 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (possibility that government defendant may reinstate a
23 rescinded policy does not enough overcome mootness; “[r]ather, there must be evidence
24 indicating that the challenged [policy] likely will be reenacted”); Smith, 233 F.3d at 1195
25 (plaintiff’s “fear of ‘the possibility’” that the government’s alleged discriminatory policy may
26 recur insufficient to overcome mootness) (quoting Noatak, 38 F.3d at 1510) (original emphasis).
27 And, again to the extent necessary, any effort to prove the matter further would implicate
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
14
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
1919
of 21
of 21

1 evidence protected by the state secrets privilege, including the circumstances surrounding the
2 cessation of the TSP—such as why the President decided not to reauthorize the program in light
3 of what replaced it—and whether the Plaintiffs were ever subject to TSP surveillance or have
4 any reasonable expectation they would be in the future. Surveillance activities like the TSP are
5 inherently secret, and it is not possible to place on the public record facts concerning their
6 possible duration, or whether a person has a reasonable expectation of being subject to such
7 surveillance, without disclosing classified intelligence sources and methods.10
8 [REDACTED TEXT]
9 C. (U) Plaintiffs’ Claims on the Merits Cannot Be Sustained
Because the Challenged Surveillance is Subject to FISA Court
10 Approval.
11 (U) Assuming, arguendo, the merits of this case could be reached, the essential
12 premise that underlies Plaintiffs’ complaint is that the TSP is unlawful because it is not
13 authorized by any statute or court and violates FISA. See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 23-25, 46. That
14 allegation is now plainly unsustainable on its own terms: as explained, any electronic
15 surveillance that was being conducted under the TSP is now being conducted subject to the
16 approval of the FISA Court. See Public Alexander Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. 175-1 (MDL-1791).
17 Plaintiffs’ underlying claims on the merits therefore manifestly fail on their own terms. Even
18
19 10
(U) Closely related to the Article III mootness doctrine is the prudential mootness
20 doctrine, which addresses "not the power to grant relief, but the court’s discretion in the exercise
of that power." Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Energy, 627 F.2d 289, 291 (D.C. Cir.
21 1980). Thus, a court may refuse to entertain a suit that, while “‘not actually moot, is so
attenuated that considerations of prudence and comity for coordinate branches of government
22
counsel that court to stay its hand and to withhold relief it has the power to grant.’” Greenbaum
23 v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527, 534-35 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Chamber of Commerce, supra); see also
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Smith, 110 F.3d 724, 727 (10th Cir. 1997); Ali v. Cangemi,
24 419 F.3d 722, 723-24 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). In the circumstances presented here, the
prudential mootness doctrine provides an independent basis for dismissing this case. This case
25
presents extraordinarily sensitive constitutional questions about the authority of the coordinate
26 Branches to authorize (or restrict) foreign intelligence gathering during wartime, and where that
activity has now been supplanted by a FISA Court order, at the very least prudence dictates
27 deference to that process by finding the matter at issue here now moot.
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
15
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
2020
of 21
of 21

1 assuming, arguendo, that a valid jurisdictional basis existed for addressing their claims in the
2 first place, relief on the merits is not possible where the challenged surveillance activity is now
3 subject to FISA, even if the circumstances of how that is occurring cannot be disclosed.
4 D. (U) The States Secrets Privilege Continues to Preclude
Adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Claims.
5
(U) Finally, to the extent Plaintiffs’ Complaint is not dismissed on its face for either
6
lack of standing or mootness, then, as indicated throughout this memorandum, the state secrets
7
privilege continues to preclude litigation of the central issues raised by this lawsuit, including:
8
(i) whether Plaintiffs could demonstrate any basis in fact for their allegation that the TSP
9
reasonably caused (or still causes despite being inoperative) any legitimate chilling effect on
10
their activities; (ii) whether Plaintiffs can prove any actual interception of their communications;
11
(iii) whether there was any voluntary cessation of alleged unlawful conduct or whether the
12
alleged unlawful conduct is capable or repetition yet evading review; and (iv) assuming there is
13
any jurisdiction for a continuing challenge, whether the TSP was unlawful.
14
(U) The information embraced by the privilege in this case is highly sensitive in
15
nature, and goes to the heart of how the Government’s foreign intelligence gathering is
16
conducted at a time when the Nation is at war with an enemy that has already inflicted
17
devastating damage on the United States by operating through a shadowy terrorist network. See
18
Defs. MSJ Mem. at 27-47; Defs. Reply at 34-43; see also Defendants’ Classified In Camera, Ex
19
Parte Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the Classified Declarations of John D.
20
Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence and Major General Richard J. Quirk, Signals
21
Intelligence Director, National Security Agency (submitted and lodged on May 26, 2006). As
22
Defendants have set forth at length, this case is about whether a classified foreign intelligence
23
activity was lawfully within the President’s statutory and constitutional authority, and the issues
24
raised cannot be decided without setting forth and evaluating the facts concerning how and why
25
that activity was conducted, and, indeed, how they are now being conducted under the
26
supervision of the FISA Court.
27
Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
28 Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
16
 Case
Case
M:06-cv-01791-VRW
3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document
Document327-9
3 Filed
Filed
06/08/2007
07/09/2007 Page
Page
2121
of 21
of 21

1 (U) “‘If there is one doctrine more deeply rooted than any other in the process of
2 constitutional adjudication, it is that [courts] ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality
3 . . . unless such adjudication is unavoidable.’” Department of Commerce v. United States House
4 of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 343 (1999) (quoting Spector Motor Service, Inc. v.
5 McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105 (1944)). There is no longer a viable reason for adjudication of
6 Plaintiffs’ claims and, as was the case from the outset, doing so is impossible without revealing
7 to our adversaries vital NSA sources and methods.
8 (U) CONCLUSION
9 (U) For the foregoing reasons, and for all the reasons stated in our prior public and in
10 camera, ex parte classified submissions, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative,
11 for Summary Judgment, should be granted.
12 DATED: June 8, 2007 Respectfully Submitted,
13 PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
14
CARL J. NICHOLS
15 Deputy Assistant Attorney General
16 DOUGLAS N. LETTER
Terrorism Litigation Counsel
17
JOSEPH H. HUNT
18 Director, Federal Programs Branch
19 /s/ Anthony J. Coppolino
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
20 Special Litigation Counsel
[email protected]
21
22 /s/ Andrew H. Tannenbaum
ANDREW H. TANNENBAUM
23 Trial Attorney
[email protected]
24
U.S. Department of Justice
25 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
26 Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: (202) 514-4782
27 (202) 514-4263
Fax: (202) 616-8460
28 Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum
Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07-CV-1115-VRW)
M:06-CV-1791-VRW
17