I don’t think Americans understand the extent to which the “foreign-intelligence exception” has hollowed out the Fourth Amendment. Most reporting about the current legislative debate is technical and incremental, and misses the forest for the trees. 1/
Here’s what's crucial: What was once an extremely narrow exception to ordinary constitutional principles has become, over time, a justification for warrantless surveillance on a staggering scale—not just of foreigners’ communications but of Americans’ communications too. 2/
With respect to Americans’ international communications, the Fourth Amendment has been made essentially a dead letter. 3/
Intelligence officials have obscured this, quite intentionally, over the course of multiple administrations, both Democratic and Republican. 4/
Since the @Snowden disclosures, the line has been that Americans don’t need to worry about this surveillance because the NSA’s activities are targeted at foreigners abroad, and any collection of Americans’ communications is incidental or inadvertent. 5/
But every part of this sentence is misleading, because intel officials have accorded unusual definitions to all of the important words in it. /6
Brett Kaufman and I wrote about this ten years ago, when I was still at the @ACLU. Unfortunately what we wrote still holds true today. 7/ slate.com/news-and-polit…
The principal point of the 2008 amendments to FISA was to allow the NSA to collect *Americans’* communications—which is what the NSA’s director said to Congress, in a moment of unusual candor. 8/ aclu.org/files/assets/a…
And so at some level it’s not a surprise that we now find ourselves here. 9/
The vital context for the current legislative debate is that successive administrations—with the help of legislators and the indifference of the courts—have already used the foreign-intelligence exception to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment. 11/
Americans aren’t going to understand the significance of the technical debate over the renewal of the FISA Amendments Act unless journalists who cover this stuff make clearer what’s really going on. 12/
Here’s something quite amazing. The OLC wrote a powerful memo explaining why the Attorney General's independence is vital to our constitutional system. It reads as if it had been drafted this morning, in response to today’s political landscape, but …. /1 knightcolumbia.org/documents/jwhw…
It was written 40 years ago. Ted Olson, then the head of the OLC, wrote it in Feb 1982 for the then-AG, William French Smith, to describe the “responsibilities of the AG to the Constitution.” /2
The memo is one of more than five hundred OLC opinions that @knightcolumbia has obtained over the past months as a result of a settlement with the Justice Department. All of the opinions are here. /3 knightcolumbia.org/reading-room/o…
Over the past months, @knightcolumbia has obtained hundreds of previously secret Office of Legal Counsel opinions on issues ranging from civil rights to national security. Yesterday we published a long-withheld set of opinions about the War Powers Act. /1 nytimes.com/2022/09/16/us/…
We were able to obtain these opinions by taking advantage of a 2016 law that limits the government’s ability to rely on the “deliberative process” privilege to withhold documents that are more than 25 years old. /2
The result has been an incredible wave of disclosure about an office that has been as secretive as it has been powerful. There is absolutely no precedent for the disclosure of OLC opinions on this scale. /3
This is actually a really hard set of questions. The government can't constitutionally coerce private publishers to censor speech. (There's a Supreme Court case about that.) But what should count as coercion is a really difficult question to answer.
For example, should the First Amendment be understood to prohibit a Senator from grilling a platform representative about the platform's editorial decisions? (@HawleyMO appears to think not.)
The Espionage Act is a much-abused law that casts a long shadow over press freedom in this country, and that impoverishes and distorts public debate about national security, foreign policy, and war. But is the EA being abused here, in Trump’s case? /1
I don’t think so. Even a narrower EA—an EA that accounted for the First Amendment interests of whistleblowers, news organizations, and the public—would apply to the facts here, if the facts are as they’re asserted to be. /2
Trump isn’t a would-be whistleblower or publisher who decided to disclose classified information to inform the public about grave government misconduct. There’s no plausible First Amendment defense of his (alleged) actions. /3
You wouldn’t know it from all the spin, but the most important thing about the Eleventh Circuit’s decision striking down (most of) Florida’s social-media law is that the court rejected *both* parties’ First Amendment theories. 🧵
Florida was arguing that its law doesn’t implicate the First Amendment at all, because (it said) the platforms don’t engage in protected expression when they moderate or curate user content. /2
The platforms, by contrast, were arguing that the First Amendment means, essentially, that they can’t be regulated at all. /3