WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the National Security Agency’s collection of millions of Americans’ phone records violates the Patriot Act.
It was the first appeals court to weigh in on the controversial surveillance program that has divided Congress and ignited a national debate over the proper scope of the government’s spy powers.
In a blistering 97-page opinion, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court and determined that the government had stretched the meaning of the statute to enable “sweeping surveillance” of Americans’ data in “staggering” volumes.
The ruling comes as Congress begins a contentious debate over whether to reauthorize the statute that underpins the NSA program or let it lapse.
The NSA’s mass collection of phone records for counterterrorism purposes — launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — was revealed by former agency contractor Edward Snowden in June 2013.
The revelation sparked outrage but also steadfast assertions by the Obama administration that the program was authorized by statute and deemed legal by a series of federal surveillance court judges. Under the program, the NSA collects “metadata” — or records of times, dates and durations of all calls but not call content.
The government has argued that huge volumes of records are relevant to counterterrorism investigations because any record could later prove critical in identifying terrorism suspects.
The appeals court, however, said “such an expansive concept of ‘relevance’ is unprecedented and unwarranted.”
The judges noted that the government “never attempted to identify to what particular ‘authorized investigation’ ” the data of all Americans’ phone calls would be relevant.
“At its core,” the panel said, “the approach boils down to the proposition that essentially all telephone records are relevant to essentially all international terrorism investigations.”
Saying the collection has amounted to “an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans,” the court said the government’s interpretation of the law would allow for the bulk collection of data associated with financial records, medical records, and e-mail and social media communications.
With the statute scheduled to expire June 1, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in the House and Senate is seeking to renew it with modifications that sponsors say will enable the NSA to get access to the records it needs while protecting Americans’ privacy.
The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Richard Burr, R-N.C., meanwhile have introduced a bill to maintain the program.
The appeals court, noting the impending deadline for the program, denied to grant a preliminary injunction to stop the NSA from collecting call records.
“In light of the asserted national security interests at stake, we deem it prudent to allow an opportunity for debate in Congress that may (or may not) profoundly alter the legal landscape,” the judges wrote.
Reaction to the court decision on the Senate floor drew sharp, conflicting responses. “According to the CIA, had these authorities been in place more than a decade ago, they would have likely prevented 9/11,” McConnell said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada chided McConnell for not bringing to the floor the bipartisan bill — the USA Freedom Act — that would reauthorize and modify the law.
“Instead of bringing the bipartisan NSA reform bill up for a vote, Sen. McConnell is trying to force the Senate to extend the bulk data collection practices that were ruled illegal today,” he said.
FBI Director James Comey, meanwhile, told reporters that if Congress lets the NSA program die, the FBI will lose a useful tool.
Administration officials have indicated that they are likely to support the bipartisan reform legislation. But the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of groups are pushing to let the statute, known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, lapse. They say that would end the NSA bulk collection while leaving in place adequate powers for the government to pursue terrorism cases.
The ACLU, the plaintiff in the case, cheered the decision. “This decision is a resounding victory for the rule of law,” said ACLU attorney Alex Abdo, who argued the case before the panel.
White House officials said they were evaluating the decision and declined to comment further.
