1442

ACLUv.Clapper

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT

AugustTerm,2015
(Argued:September2,2015Decided:October29,2015)
DocketNo.1442cv
________________
AMERICANCIVILLIBERTIESUNION,AMERICANCIVILLIBERTIESUNIONFOUNDATION,
NEWYORKCIVILLIBERTIESUNION,andNEWYORKCIVILLIBERTIESUNION
FOUNDATION,
PlaintiffsAppellants,
v.
JAMESR.CLAPPER,inhisofficialcapacityasDirectorofNationalIntelligence,
MICHAELS.ROGERS,inhisofficialcapacityasDirectoroftheNationalSecurity
AgencyandChiefoftheCentralSecurityService,ASHTONB.CARTER,inhis
officialcapacityasSecretaryofDefense,LORETTAE.LYNCH,inherofficial
capacityasAttorneyGeneraloftheUnitedStates,andJAMESB.COMEY,inhis
officialcapacityasDirectoroftheFederalBureauofInvestigation,
DefendantsAppellees.

Before:
SACKandLYNCH,CircuitJudges,andBRODERICK,DistrictJudge.*
__________________
PlaintiffsappellantsAmericanCivilLibertiesUnionandAmericanCivil
LibertiesUnionFoundation,andNewYorkCivilLibertiesUnionandNewYork
CivilLibertiesUnionFoundation,moveforapreliminaryinjunction,requesting
variousrelief.WeconcludethatCongressintendedtoauthorizethecontinuation
ofthebulktelephonemetadatacollectionprogramforalimitedperiodof180
days,anddeclinetoreachtheconstitutionalissuesforprudentialreasons.We
thereforeDENYthemotionforapreliminaryinjunctionandREMANDfor
furtherproceedingsinthedistrictcourt.

ALEXANDERABDO,AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionFoundation(Jameel
Jaffer,PatrickToomey,AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionFoundation,
NewYork,NY;ChristopherT.Dunn,ArthurN.Eisenburg,NewYork
CivilLibertiesUnionFoundation,NewYork,NY,onthebrief),New
York,NY,forPlaintiffsAppellants.
HENRYC.WHITAKER,UnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice(BenjaminC.
Mizer,PrincipalDeputyAssistantAttorneyGeneral,UnitedStates
DepartmentofJustice,Washington,DC;DouglasN.Letter,H.Thomas
*

TheHonorableVernonS.Broderick,oftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe
SouthernDistrictofNewYork,sittingbydesignation.
2

ByronIII,CivilDivision,AppellateStaff,UnitedStatesDepartmentof
Justice,Washington,DC;PreetBharara,UnitedStatesAttorneyforthe
SouthernDistrictofNewYork,NewYork,NY;DavidS.Jones,JohnD.
Clopper, Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorneys,
NewYork,NY,onthebrief),Washington,DC,forDefendantsAppellees.

GERARDE.LYNCH,CircuitJudge:
ThisopinionconcernstheeffectofthepassageoftheUSAFREEDOMAct
(FreedomAct)onongoinglitigationsurroundingthelegalityofthe
governmentsbulktelephonemetadatacollectionprogram.Weaddressedthe
meritsinanearlieropinion,ACLUv.Clapper,785F.3d787(2dCir.2015).Inthat
opinionweheldthatthebulktelephonemetadatacollectionprogramwasnot
authorizedbyprovisionsoftheUSAPATRIOTAct(PatriotAct).Subsequent
tothatdecision,CongresspassedtheFreedomAct,whicheffectivelyputanend
tothetelephonemetadataprogramandcreatedanalternativeprogram,but
providedfora180daytransitionperiod.Theeffectofthistransitionperiodis
theprimaryissuebeforetheCourt.Appellantsmoveforapreliminaryinjunction
tobarthegovernment,duringthependencyofthelitigation,fromcollecting
Appellantscallrecordsunderthetelephonemetadataprogram,torequirethe
governmenttoquarantineallofAppellantscallrecordsalreadycollectedunder
3

theprogram,andtoprohibitthegovernmentfromqueryingmetadataobtained
throughtheprogramusinganyphonenumberorotheridentifierassociatedwith
them.WhilewefindthatAppellantsclaimsarenotmootatthistime,wedecline
todisturbthedecisionbyCongresstoprovidefora180daytransitionperiodto
putanorderlyendtothetelephonemetadataprogram.Wethereforedenythe
motionforapreliminaryinjunction.
BACKGROUND
Theunderlyingappealconcernsthelegalityofthebulktelephone
metadatacollectionprogram,underwhichtheNationalSecurityAgency
(NSA)collectsmetadataabouttelephonecallsmadebyandtoAmericans,and
aggregatesthosemetadataintoarepositorythatcanlaterbequeried.Telephone
metadatadoesnotincludethecontentsofatelephonecall,butratherthedetails
aboutthecall,suchasthelengthofthecall,thephonenumberfromwhichthecall
wasmade,andthephonenumberatwhichthecallwasreceivedinformation
sometimesreferredtoascalldetailrecords.
AttentiontotheissueofbulksurveillanceofAmericancitizensbythe
governmenthassharplyincreasedamongtheAmericanpublic,thecourts,and
thelegislaturesinceEdwardSnowdenbeganhishighlypublicizeddisclosuresof
4

confidentialinformationabouttheprogramin2013.Recently,weissuedan
opinioninthiscase,findingthatthebulktelephonemetadataprograminuseby
theNSAwasnotauthorizedby215oftheUSAPATRIOTActof2001,Pub.L.
No.10756,115Stat.272(2001),whichamendedtheForeignIntelligence
SurveillanceActof1978(FISA),Pub.L.No.95511,92Stat.1783(1978)
(codifiedasamendedat50U.S.C.1801etseq.).Shortlythereafter,Congress
allowedthePatriotActtoexpire,thenpassedtheUSAFREEDOMActof2015,
Pub.L.No.11423,129Stat.268(2015),whichaltered215insignificantways.
I.

Section215
In1978,CongressenactedFISA,comprehensivelegislationaimedat

curtailingabusesanddelineatingprocedurestobeemployedinconducting
surveillanceinforeignintelligenceinvestigations.CongressamendedFISAafter
theterroristattacksofSeptember11,2001,inthePatriotAct.
Section215ofthePatriotActallowsthedirectoroftheFBIorhisdesigneeto
makeanapplicationforanorderrequiringthe
productionofanytangiblethings(includingbooks,
records,papers,documents,andotheritems)foran
investigationtoobtainforeignintelligenceinformation
notconcerningaUnitedStatespersonortoprotect
againstinternationalterrorismorclandestine
intelligenceactivities.
5

50U.S.C.1861(a)(1).Initscurrentform,ineffectuntilNovember29,2015,the
provisionrequiressuchanapplicationtoinclude
astatementoffactsshowingthattherearereasonable
groundstobelievethatthetangiblethingssoughtare
relevanttoanauthorizedinvestigation(otherthana
threatassessment)conductedinaccordancewith
subsection(a)(2)toobtainforeignintelligence
informationnotconcerningaUnitedStatespersonorto
protectagainstinternationalterrorismorclandestine
intelligenceactivities.
Id.1861(b)(2)(A).
II.

TheMay7Order
OnJune11,2013,theappellantsinthismatter,theAmericanCivilLiberties

UnionandAmericanCivilLibertiesUnionFoundation(collectively,ACLU)
andtheNewYorkCivilLibertiesUnionandNewYorkCivilLibertiesUnion
Foundation(collectively,NYCLU)suedthegovernmentofficialsresponsible
foradministeringthetelephonemetadataprogram,challengingtheprogramon
bothstatutoryandconstitutionalgroundsandseekingdeclaratoryandinjunctive
relief.Appellantscomplaintaskedthecourttodeclarethatthetelephone
metadataprogramexceededtheauthoritygrantedby215,andalsoviolatedthe
FirstandFourthAmendmentstotheU.S.Constitution.Thecomplaintalsoasked
6

thecourttopermanentlyenjointhegovernmentfromcontinuingtheprogram,
andtoorderthegovernmenttopurgefromtheirpossessionallofthecall
recordsofPlaintiffscommunicationscollectedinaccordancewiththeprogram.
Complaintat10,ACLUv.Clapper,No.1:13cv03994WHP(S.D.N.Y.2013).
OnMay7,2015,thisCourtheldthat215ofthePatriotActdidnot
authorizethebulktelephonemetadataprogram.WereasonedthatifCongress
hadintendedtoauthorizebulkcollectionofvirtuallyallmetadataassociated
withtelephonecallsmadebyandtoAmericans,itwouldhavedonesoexplicitly.
Thecollectionofthesecalldetailrecordswasnotrelevanttoauthorized
counterterrorisminvestigationbythegovernmentunder50U.S.C.
1861(b)(2)(A),andthus,thetelephonemetadataprogramexceededtheauthority
grantedbyFISA.Clapper,785F.3dat81819,826.
III.

TheUSAFREEDOMAct
Section215,alongwithcertainotherprovisionsofthePatriotAct,expired

onJune1,2015.SeePATRIOTSunsetsExtensionActof2011,Pub.L.No.11214,
125Stat.216(2011).OnJune2,2015,CongresspassedtheFreedomAct,which
thePresidenthassignedintolaw.TheFreedomActamends215insignificant
ways.
7

TheFreedomActamends215ofthePatriotActtopermitthegovernment
tocollectcalldetailrecordsunder50U.S.C.1861onlyifitmeetscertain
additionalrequirements,includingareasonable,articulablesuspicionthat
suchspecificselectiontermisassociatedwithaforeignpower...oranagentofa
foreignpowerengagedininternationalterrorismoractivitiesinpreparation
therefor.USAFREEDOMAct101(a)(3).Thisprovisionprovidesformore
narrowlytailoredandtargetedcollectionofcalldetailrecords.Section101also
requiresthegovernmenttoadoptminimizationproceduresthatrequirethe
promptdestructionofcalldetailrecordsproducedthatitdeterminesarenot
foreignintelligenceinformation.Id.101(b)(3)
Section103oftheFreedomAct,titledProhibitiononBulkCollectionof
TangibleThings,statesthat[n]oorderissuedunderthissubsectionmay
authorizethecollectionoftangiblethingswithouttheuseofaspecificselection
termthatmeetscertainrequirements.Id.Thepurposeof103istomake[]
clearthatthegovernmentmaynotengageinindiscriminatebulkcollectionof
anytangiblethingoranytypeofrecord.H.R.Rep.No.114109,pt.1,at18
(2015).Section103isalsointendedtorestoremeaningfullimitstothe

relevancerequirementofSection501,consistentwiththeopinionoftheU.S.
CourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuitinACLUv.Clapper.Id.at19.
Largelyatissueinthepresentdisputeis109,titledEffectiveDate,
whichdelaystheeffectivedateof101103above,sectionsdealingspecifically
withthetelephonemetadataprogram.Section109states,Theamendments
madebysections101through103shalltakeeffectonthedatethatis180days
afterthedateoftheenactmentofthisAct.1Section109furtherstatesthat
[n]othinginthisActshallbeconstruedtoalteror
eliminatetheauthorityoftheGovernmenttoobtainan
orderundertitleVoftheForeignIntelligence
SurveillanceActof1978(50U.S.C.1861etseq.)asin
effectpriortotheeffectivedatedescribedinsubsection
(a)duringtheperiodendingonsucheffectivedate.
USAFREEDOMAct109.
OnthedaytheFreedomActwasenacted,thegovernmentaskedthe
ForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceCourt(FISC),whichprovidesjudicial
oversightofclassifiedintelligencecommunityactivities,toallowittocontinue
thetelephonemetadataprogramduringthe180daytransitionperiod,arguing
that109constitutedanauthorizationtocontinuebulkcollectionduringthat
1

AstheActwasenactedonJune2,2015,theeffectivedatefor101103became
November29,2015.
9

periodtoallowfortheorderlyterminationofthatcollection.SeeMem.ofLaw
at5,InreApplicationoftheFBIforanOrderRequiringtheProductionof
TangibleThings,No.BR1575(FISACt.June2,2015).OnJune29,theFISC
grantedtheJune2applicationofthegovernmenttocontinuethebulkdata
collectionforthe180dayperiod.Opinion&Order,InreApplicationoftheFBI
foranOrderRequiringtheProductionofTangibleThings,No.BR1575(FISACt.
June29,2015).
OnJune9,thisCourtdirectedthepartiestosubmitsupplementalbriefs
regardingtheeffectoftheFreedomActonthecase,andinparticularwhether
anyorallofAppellantsclaimshadbeenrenderedmootasaresultofthat
legislation.Wefurtherorderedthattheissuanceofthemandateinthisactionbe
stayedpendingthepartiessupplementalbriefing.Appellantsrespondedtothis
orderbymovingforapreliminaryinjunctiontohaltthetelephonemetadata
program,duringthependencyofthissuit,withregardstothemselves,and
requestingthatthecaseberemandedtothedistrictcourtforfurther
considerationandtheentryoffinalrelief.

10

DISCUSSION
I.

Mootness
Appellantsseek,throughapreliminaryinjunctionduringthependencyof

thissuit,tobarthegovernmentfromcollectingAppellantscallrecordsunderthe
telephonemetadataprogram,torequirethegovernmenttoquarantineallof
Appellantscallrecordsalreadycollectedundertheprogram,andtoprohibitthe
governmentfromqueryingmetadataobtainedthroughtheprogramusingany
phonenumberorotheridentifierassociatedwiththem.TheyalsoasktheCourt
toremandthecasesothatthedistrictcourtmaygrantthefinalrelieftheyseek,to
endthebulktelephonemetadataprogram,andpurgetherecordscollected
unlawfully.Theserequestsassumethattheirclaimsarenotmoot.
First,Appellantsaskustoenjointhegovernmentfromcontinuingto
collectandquerytheircalldetailrecordsduringthe180daytransitionperiod.
Appellantsargue,andthegovernmentconcedes,thattheseclaimsarenotmoot,
becauseadecisiontograntapreliminaryinjunctiononbehalfoftheplaintiffsby
thisCourtwouldhaveeffect,atleastuntilNovember29.Therefore,Appellants
requestforrelieftohaltthecollectionandqueryingofAppellantsrecordsduring
the180daytransitionperiodisnotmoot.
11

Appellantsandthegovernmentdisagree,however,regardingthe
mootnessofthefinalreliefrequestedafterNovember29:aninjunctionthat
wouldrequirethegovernmenttoendthetelephonemetadataprogramand
purgerecordscollectedunlawfully.Appellantsarguethatthegovernment
intendstoretaintherecordsindefinitely,andareundernooutsideobligation
topurgethem,andthusthattheirclaimsforreliefwillnotbecomemooton
November29.ThegovernmentarguesthattheclaimswillbemootonNovember
29,becausethetelephonemetadataprogramwillceaseatthattime,andanorder
enjoiningthetelephonemetadataprogramwillhavenoeffect.
Further,thegovernmentnotesthattheOfficeoftheDirectorofNational
Intelligencehasannouncedthatthegovernmentwillnotuse215dataforlaw
enforcementorinvestigatorypurposesafterNovember29.SeeStatementbythe
ODNIonRetentionofDataCollectedUnderSection215oftheUSAPATRIOT
Act(July27,2015).Additionally,thegovernmentstatesthatitwilldestroyall
recordsassoonaspossibleafterthegovernmentslitigationpreservation
obligationsend,id.,andthusAppellantsrequeststhattheirinformationno
longerbequeriedandthattheirrecordsbepurgedwillalsobemoot.
However,Appellantshaveaskedustoremandtothedistrictcourtfor
12

considerationofitsfinalrelief,andreliefafterNovember29isnotrequested
underthepreliminaryinjunction.Whetherafederalcourthastheauthorityto
orderthegovernmenttopurgerecords,andwhichifanyofAppellantsclaims
becomemootonNovember29,arequestionsforthedistrictcourt.Seee.g.,Doe
v.Gonzalez,449F.3d415,419(2dCir.2006)(remandingtoallowthedistrict
courttoaddressconstitutionalquestionsinthefirstinstancefollowinglegislative
revisionofthestatuteatissue);Cf.Lewisv.ContinentalBankCorp.,494U.S.472,
482(1990)([I]ninstanceswherethemootnessisattributabletoachangeinthe
legalframeworkgoverningthecase,andwheretheplaintiffmayhavesome
residualclaimunderthenewframeworkthatwasunderstandablynotasserted
previously,ourpracticeistovacatethejudgmentandremandforfurther
proceedingsinwhichthepartiesmay,ifnecessary,amendtheirpleadingsor
developtherecordmorefully.).TheclaimsforwhichAppellantsnowseeka
preliminaryinjunctionarenotmoot,atleastatthistime,asthegovernment
concedes.WethereforeproceedtodeterminewhetherAppellantsareentitledto
suchaninjunction.
II.

PreliminaryInjunction
Apreliminaryinjunctionisanequitableremedyandanactofdiscretionby
13

thecourt.Apartyseekingapreliminaryinjunctionmustgenerallyshowa
likelihoodofsuccessonthemerits,alikelihoodofirreparableharminthe
absenceofpreliminaryrelief,thatthebalanceofequitiestipsinthepartysfavor,
andthataninjunctionisinthepublicinterest.Winterv.NRDC,555U.S.7,20
(2008).
Appellantsarguethattheyarelikelytosucceedonthemerits,becausethis
Courtearlierheldthatthetelephonemetadataprogramwasnotauthorizedby
215,whichtheFreedomActleavesinplaceasthegoverninglawforthe180
daytransitionperiod,andthattheywillsufferirreparableinjury,because
irreparableharmispresumedwherethereisanallegeddeprivationof
constitutionalrights.Statharosv.NewYorkCityTaxi&LimousineCommn,198
F.3d317,322(2dCir.1999).Evenifthispresumptiondoesnotapply,theyargue,
thecontinuationofthetelephonemetadataprogrammeansthecontinuationof
thegovernmentsintrusionintoAppellantsprivatecommunications.They
arguethatthegovernmentwillnotbeundulyharmedbythenarrowpreliminary
injunctionastotheirrecordsthattheyrequestatthistime.
First,wemustdeterminewhethertheFreedomActauthorizesthe
continuationofthebulktelephonemetadatacollectionprogramduringthe180
14

daytransitionperiod.Appellantsarguethatthetransitionperiodcannot
authorizetheuseofbulkcollection,becauseweearlierfoundthattheplain
languageofthestatutedidnotauthorizeit,andCongressdidnotchangethe
languageforthedurationofthe180dayperiod.Thegovernmentarguesthat,in
context,theinclusionofa180daydelaycanonlymeanthatCongressintendedto
allowthetelephonemetadataprogramtocontinueduringthetransitionperiod,
inordertofacilitatetheorderlytransitiontothenew,targetedsurveillance
regime.
Certainlyitistruethatifstatutorylanguageisplain,wemustenforceit
accordingtoitsterms.Hardtv.RelianceStandardLifeIns.Co.,560U.S.242,251
(2010).However,whendecidingwhetherthelanguageisplain,wemustread
thewordsintheircontextandwithaviewtotheirplaceintheoverallstatutory
scheme.Kingv.Burwell,135S.Ct.2480,2489(2015)(internalquotationmarks
omitted).Wemustalsostrivetoavoidinterpretationsofastatutethatwould
renderanyphraseorprovisionsuperfluous.TRWInc.v.Andrews,534U.S.19,
31(2001).
AppellantsnotethatweearlierheldthatadecisionbyCongressto
authorizesuchsurveillancemustbeexpressedinunmistakablelanguage.
15

Clapper,785F.3dat818.TheyarguethatbecauseCongressleftthelanguageof
theActunchangedduringthetransitionperiod,thesurveillancemustremain
unauthorized.BecauseCongresswaslegislating,astheACLUputsit,inthe
shadowofthisCourtsMay7opinion,itcouldonlyhavemeant,bydelayingthe
effectivedateof101103,tolegislativelyratifyourunderstandingofthe
statuteasnotauthorizingbulkcollection.Motion&BriefforAppellantsat10.
Whilethislineofreasoninghassomesurfaceappeal,wemustdisagree.
Toarguethattheplainlanguageofthepresentstatuteisclearbasedonits
previousformisspurious.CongresspassedtheFreedomActinparttoprohibit
bulktelephonemetadatacollection,andindoingsoendorsedourunderstanding
ofthekeytermrelevance.SeeH.R.Rep.No.114109,at19.Contraryto
Appellantsassertion,thelanguageoftheActasawholehasnotremained
unchanged.Thestatutehasbeenamendedinseveralimportantrespects,
includingtoprohibitbulktelephonemetadatacollection,withaprovision
delayingthateffectivedateby180days.Thatisfarfromamerereenactmentthat
failstogiveaclearindicationthatCongressmadeanaffirmativedecision
regardingitsintention.

16

Inthesamepassageofourprioropinionnotingtherequirementof
unmistakablelanguage,wefurthernotedthatwewouldexpectadecisionby
Congresswhethertoauthorizeaprogramsuchasthebulktelephonemetadata
collectiontobeprecededbysubstantialdebate.Clapper,785F.3dat818.That
debatehasnowunquestionablyoccurred.Unlikepreviousextensionsofthe
PatriotAct,theFreedomActwastheresultofmorethantwoyearsofdiscussion
anddebatebyCongressovertheproperscopeofbulkdatacollectionunder
215.WhilethepresentCongresscannottelluswhattheCongressthatpassed
thePatriotActintendedtoauthorize,itsintentinpassingtheFreedomActis
clear.The180daytransitionperiodrepresentsCongresssconsideredjudgment
thatthereshouldbetimeforanorderlytransitionfromtheexistingprogramto
thenew,targetedsurveillanceprogram.Thatorderlytransitionrequiresthatthe
governmentretainthetoolsithasbeenusingtoinvestigatethreatsofforeign
terrorismuntilnewtoolsmaybeputinplace.Weagreewiththegovernment
thatCongressreachedacompromise,supportedbythePresident:toendthe
telephonemetadataprogram,buttoallowfora180daytransitionperiod.The
intentionofthedemocraticallyelectedbranchesofgovernmentisthusclear.

17

Lookingtothelegislativehistory,whichisinformativethoughnot
decisive,thediscussionsregardingthe180daytransitionperiodlendcredenceto
thiscompromise.First,Congresshadbeforeitthegovernmentsrepresentations
thattheNSAstransitiontothenewmodeloftargetedproductionwouldrequire
timetobefullyoperational.161Cong.Rec.S3275(dailyed.May22,2015)
(statementofSen.Leahy)(quotingletterfromNationalSecurityAgency
Director).Second,therewasexplicitdebateinCongressastotheexactlengthof
thetransitionperiod.SomemembersofCongressdesiredalongertransition
periodtomakesurethetechnologyisinplaceforthisprogramtocontinue.
See161Cong.Rec.S3391(dailyed.June1,2015)(statementofSen.Burr).Other
memberspreferredtokeepthetransitionperiodto180days,andexplicitly
rejectedproposalstoincludeaprovisiontokeepthebulkcollectionprogramin
placeformorethantwoyearsbecausetheNSADirectorstated...thatthe
NSAonlyneeds180daystotransitiontothenewtargetedprogram.161Cong.
Rec.S3275(dailyed.May22,2015)(statementofSen.Leahy).Ashared
premiseofCongressindebatingthelengthofthetransitionperiod,the
governmentargues,wasthatthebulkcollectionwouldcontinueduringthe
transitionperiod.BriefforAppelleesat9.
18

Appellantspointtonoevidenceinthelegislativehistorytosupportthe
contrarypropositionthatCongressintendedtobanbulktelephonemetadata
collectionimmediately,despiteincludingexplicitlanguageinthestatute
delayingtheeffectofitsprohibitionofthepriorprogramfor180days.
Appellantsargueweaklythattheclarificationofrelevanceismeanttoendthe
telephonemetadataprogramimmediately.Thecommitteereportonthe
FreedomActstatesthatCongressdecisiontoleaveinplacetherelevance
standardforSection501ordersshouldnotbeconstruedasCongressintentto
ratifytheFISACourtsinterpretationofthatterm.H.R.Rep.No.114109,at18
19.Toexplainthelatereffectivedateof101103providedby109,
AppellantsarguethatitisbestunderstoodasCongresssefforttoensurethat
bulkcollectionwouldendnomatterhowcourtsultimatelyunderstoodthe
conceptofrelevance.ReplyBriefforAppellantsat6.However,thereisnot
oneiotaofevidencethatthiscomplicatedrationalewasthereasonforthelater
effectivedate,norhaveAppellantspointedustoanyevidencetodemonstrate
thatanymemberofCongressintendedorbelievedthatbulkcollectionwould
endthedaythebillwaspassed.2Further,therelevancelanguageremainsin
2

Whilenotspecificallytreatedasacanonofstatutoryinterpretation,Occams
razorisaproposhere.See,e.g.,OxfordEnglishDictionary(3dEd.2004)
19

thestatuteasamendedafterthe180daytransitionperiod,andthusweagree
withthegovernmentthattheclarificationoftherelevancestandard,likethe
otheramendmentstothetelephonemetadataprogram,ismeanttoapplytothe
statuteafterthe180daytransitionperiod.
Mostconvincingly,thegovernmentarguesthatthelanguageofFISA,as
amendedbytheFreedomAct,demonstratesthatCongressintendedforthe
telephonemetadataprogramtocontinueduringthetransitionperiod.That
Congressdidnotchangethelanguageof215mustbeviewedinthecontextof
thelargerchangestothestatute.SeeKingv.Burwell,135S.Ct.at2489.The
FreedomActmademanyamendmentstoFISA,includingbanningothertypesof
bulkcollection,suchasthatforpenregistersandtrapandtraceorders,3but
enactednosuchtransitionprovisionasthatin109todelaytheeffectofother
bansonbulkcollections.ItmakesnosensetoconcludethatCongress,while
providingfortheimmediateeffectofotheramendments,alsointendedforbulk

(definingOccamsrazoras[t]heprinciple...thatinexplaininganything,no
moreassumptionsshouldbemadethanarenecessary.).
3
H.R.Rep.No.114109,at21([Section201]prohibitstheuseofthepenregister
andtrapandtracedeviceauthorityforbulkcollectionbyrequiringeach
applicationunderthissectiontoincludeaspecificselectiontermasthebasisfor
theuseofapenregisterortrapandtracedevice.).
20

telephonemetadatacollectiontoendimmediately,byincludinglanguagethat
thoseprovisionsnottakeeffectfor180days.
Finally,givingimmediateeffecttothebanonbulktelephonemetadata
collectionwouldrenderthelanguageof109superfluous.SeeTRW,534U.S.at
31.Appellantstenuousargumentthattheclarificationoftherelevancestandard
wasmeanttotakeeffectinthemeantime,withthefinalbanmerelysealingthe
deal,isunconvincing.IfCongresshadintendedtoendbulkcollectiononJune2,
itwouldhavesimplysaidso,oratleast,asintheremainderoftheFreedomAct,
saidnothingtothecontrary.Thelanguageof215asamendedbytheFreedom
ActindicatesthatCongressintendedthetelephonemetadataprogramto
continueduringthetransitionperiod.
Regardlessofwhetherthebulktelephonemetadataprogramwasillegal
priortoMay,aswehaveheld,andwhetheritwouldbeillegalafterNovember
29,asCongresshasnowexplicitlyprovided,itisclearthatCongressintendedto
authorizeitduringthetransitionaryperiod.Ourinterpretationof215as
amendedbytheFreedomActleadsustoconcludethat,atthispoint,Appellants
havenotshownalikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits.SeeWinter,555U.S.at20.
WethereforerejectAppellantsargumentthatthegovernmentshouldbe
21

enjoinedonthegroundthatthebulktelephonemetadataprogramcontinuesto
beunauthorizedbystatute.
III.

ConstitutionalIssues
Appellantsarguethatifwedecide,aswenowhave,thatCongressallowed

thetelephonemetadataprogramtocontinueduringthe180daytransition
period,wemustreachthevexingconstitutionalissuesweearlieravoided:
whether215violatesAppellantsrightsundertheFourthandFirst
AmendmentstotheConstitution.ThequestionposedbyAppellantsinvokesone
ofthemostdifficultissuesofmodernjurisprudence:whethermoderntechnology
changestraditionalandreasonableexpectationsofprivacy.TheFourth
Amendmentissueraisedhere,aswenotedearlier,isadispute[that]touchesan
issueonwhichtheSupremeCourtsjurisprudenceisinsometurmoil.4Clapper,
785F.3dat821.WhateverwemightultimatelyconcludeabouttheConstitutions
4

Appellantscontendthattheseizureoftheirtelephonerecordsviolatestheir
reasonableexpectationofprivacy.Katzv.UnitedStates,389U.S.347(1967).The
governmentinvokesthethirdpartydoctrineofSmithv.Maryland,442U.S.735,
74344,toassertthatAppellantshavenoprivacyrightsintherecords,because
telephonemetadataisvoluntarilyturnedovertothirdpartyphoneproviders.
Whilewenotedearlierthatintodaystechnologicallybasedworld,itisvirtually
impossibleforanordinarycitizentoavoidcreatingmetadataabouthimselfona
regularbasissimplybyconductinghisordinaryaffairs,Clapper,785F.3dat794,
weneednotdecidetodaytherelationshipbetweenchangingexpectationsof
privacyandthirdpartyproviders.
22

demandsinsuchanovelandcontentiousarea,itis,ataminimum,difficultto
concludethatAppellantsarelikelytosucceedinarguingthatnewconditions
requireareconsiderationofthereachofalongestablishedprecedent.
Thegovernmenturgesusnottoreachtheseissues,becauseweshould
respectthejudgmentofthedemocraticallyelectedbranchesofgovernmentto
dismantletheprograminawaythatheedsnationalsecurityconcerns.Weagree
withthegovernmentthatweoughtnotmeddlewithCongresssconsidered
decisionregardingthetransitionawayfrombulktelephonemetadatacollection,
andalsofindthataddressingtheseissuesatthistimewouldnotbeaprudentuse
ofjudicialauthority.Weneednot,andshouldnot,decidesuchmomentous
constitutionalissuesbasedonarequestforsuchnarrowandtemporaryrelief.5
Todosowouldtakemoretimethanthebrieftransitionperiodremainingforthe
telephonemetadataprogram,atwhichpoint,anyrulingontheconstitutionality
ofthedemisedprogramwouldbefruitless.
Appellantsreanimatetheirearlierargumentswithoutheedtothe
drasticallydifferentcontextinwhichtheynowarise.Thequestionisnotwhether
TheSupremeCourtdeclinedtoresolveasimilarquestioninUnitedStatesv.
Jones,132S.Ct.945,95153(2012),decidingtheissuepresentedonatechnical
trespasstheoryratherthandecidingwhethertheuseofmoderntechnology
requiredachangeinexistingdoctrineregardingexpectationsofprivacy.
5

23

Congressmayconstitutionallyauthorizethistypeofbulkdatacollection
indefinitely,butwhetherCongressmay,indismantlingaprogramofthistype,
authorizeatransitionalperiodwithaclearendpoint.Allowingtheprogramto
remaininplacefortheshortperiodthatremainsatissueistheprudentcourse.
Suchatransitionalperiodwouldlikelyhavebeenappropriateevenhadweheld
215unconstitutionalinourearlierdecisionintheinstantmatter.6
Congresshasdecided,afternearlytwoyearsofdebate,thatthistypeof
datacollectionshallnotbeauthorizedinthefuture.Anabruptendtothe
programwouldbecontrarytothepublicinterestineffectivesurveillanceof
terroristthreats,andCongressthusprovideda180daytransitionperiod.Under
thecircumstances,wewilldefertothatreasonabledecision.
CONCLUSION
CongressreactedtogrowingprivacyconcernsbypassingtheFreedomAct
andendingthebulktelephonemetadatacollectionprogram,andtransitioningto
anewtargetedsurveillanceprogramaimedatprotectingtheUnitedStatesfrom
foreignterrorism.Whatifanylegalchallengesarisefromthenewsystemhave
6

Indeed,Appellantsthemselvesdidnotseekreliefuntilnearlyonethirdofthe
periodhadelapsed,andonlyafterwehadraisedthequestionofmootnessand
solicitedfurtherbriefing.
24

yettobeseen.Congresshasbalancedprivacyandnationalsecuritybyproviding
fora180daytransitionperiod,adecisionthatitisuniquelysuitedtomake.
Congresssdecisiontodososhouldberespected.
Fortheforegoingreasons,weconcludethat215authorizesthetelephone
metadatacollectionprogramfortheperiodof180daysfromtheFreedomActs
enactment,aspartofalargermovetodismantletheprogram.Wedeclineto
reachtheconstitutionalissues,anddenyapreliminaryinjunctionatthistime,as
theeffectwouldbelimitedtothetimebeforeNovember29,whenthenatureof
theharmcomplainedofbyAppellantswillchange,andwouldrequireresolving
momentousConstitutionalissues.WedonotaddresswhetherAppellants
claimswillbecomemootonNovember29,andleavethis,andallother
remainingquestions,tothedistrictcourtinthefirstinstance.Accordingly,we
DENYthemotionforapreliminaryinjunctionandREMANDthematterfor
furtherproceedingsinthedistrictcourtconsistentwiththisopinionandour
prioropinioninthiscase.

25