TMT Law Watch
Ninth Circuit Upholds Immunity for Telecoms
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of thirty-three claims against telecom companies that had assisted government agencies with warrantless eavesdropping in connection with a post-9/11 surveillance program. In a 2008 amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), which was passed partially in response to pending lawsuits challenging the providers’ assistance to the government in connection with the program, telecom companies were provided qualified retroactive immunity for “providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community,” such as the National Security Agency, to obtain information regarding phone and Internet customer communications. The decision in Hepting v. AT&T Corp. follows years of debate regarding the constitutionality of the surveillance program, as well as multiple legal challenges by privacy advocates such as the ACLU.
Writing for a unanimous court, Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown noted that federal agencies regularly rely upon private companies to assist with intelligence gathering and that lawsuits against such companies may make the companies unwilling to cooperate with the government in future operations. The Ninth Circuit panel found that the qualified immunity provided to telecom companies in the 2008 FISA Amendment did not violate separation of powers principles nor the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause and upheld a federal district court’s 2009 decision dismissing the lawsuits. In a separate decision issued concurrently with Hepting, the Ninth Circuit panel also affirmed the dismissal, on jurisdictional grounds, of a class action lawsuit that claimed that the warrantless surveillance program violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
While the panel’s decisions represent a major win for telecom companies, the overall legality of the warrantless wiretapping program remains subject to challenge. In Jewell v. NSA, the Ninth Circuit panel allowed a lawsuit to proceed against the National Security Agency and Department of Justice, noting that the plaintiff had alleged “concrete and particularized” evidence of unlawful surveillance. It is unclear at this time whether Supreme Court review of any of the panel’s recent decisions will be sought.
K&L Gates LLP
1601 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006
p. 202.778.9000 f. 202.778.9100 This blog/Web site is made available by the contributing lawyers or law firm publisher solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general legal principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. By using this blog/Web site, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship intended or formed between you and the blog/Web site publisher or any contributing lawyer. The blog/Web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.
K&L Gates practices out of 48 fully integrated offices located in the United States, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East and South America and represents leading global corporations, growth and middle-market companies, capital markets participants and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations and individuals. For more information about K&L Gates or its locations, practices and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.
Portions of this Web site may contain Attorney Advertising under the rules of some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.