Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Tweet[IWS] CRS: National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background [3 January 2014]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background
Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist in American Public Law
January 3, 2014
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33320.pdf
[full-text, 43 pages]
Summary
Five federal statutes authorize intelligence officials to request certain business record information
in connection with national security investigations. The authority to issue these national security
letters (NSLs) is comparable to the authority to issue administrative subpoenas. The USA
PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) expanded the authority under four of the NSL statutes and created the
fifth. Thereafter, the authority has been reported to have been widely used. Prospects of its
continued use dimmed, however, after two lower federal courts held that the lack of judicial
review and the absolute confidentiality requirements in one of the statutes rendered it
constitutionally suspect.
A report by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General (IG) found that in its pre-amendment
use of expanded USA PATRIOT Act authority the FBI had “used NSLs in violation of applicable
NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies,” but that no criminal laws
had been broken. A year later, a second IG report confirmed the findings of the first, and noted the
corrective measures taken in response. A third IG report, critical of the FBI’s use of exigent letters
and informal NSL alternatives, noted that the practice had been stopped and related problems
addressed.
The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act (P.L. 109-177, and its companion, P.L.
109-178) amended the five NSL sections to expressly provide for judicial review of both the
NSLs and the confidentiality requirements that attend them. The sections have also been made
explicitly judicially enforceable and sanctions recognized for failure to comply with an NSL
request or to breach NSL confidentiality requirements with the intent to obstruct justice. The use
of the authority has been made subject to greater congressional oversight. Following amendment,
a federal district court found the amended procedure contrary to the demands of the First
Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however, ruled that the amended
statutes could withstand constitutional scrutiny, if the government confined itself to a procedure
which requires (1) notice to the recipient of its option to object to a secrecy requirement; (2) upon
recipient objection, prompt judicial review at the government’s petition and burden; and (3)
meaningful judicial review without conclusive weight afforded a government certification of risk.
Using this procedure, the district court upheld continuation of the Doe nondisclosure requirement
following an ex parte, in camera hearing and granted the plaintiff’s motion for an unclassified,
redacted summary of the government declaration on which the court’s decision was based. More
recently, a district court in the Ninth Circuit agreed the amended nondisclosure and judicial
review provisions were constitutionally defective, but could not agree to the Second Circuit’s
narrowing construction or that the NSL statute could be saved by severing the deficient disclosure
provisions. The district court stayed its order enjoining issuance of further NSLs or enforcement
of any accompanying nondisclosure provisions, however, pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies recommended
several NSL statutory adjustments designed to eliminate differences between NSLs and Section
215 orders (under P.L. 107-56), including requiring pre-issuance judicial approval of NSLs.
The text of the five provisions has been appended. This report is available abridged—without
footnotes, appendixes, and most of the citations to authority—as CRS Report RS22406, National
Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse at the Legal Background, by
Charles Doyle.
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Pre-amendment Judicial Action ................................................................................................. 7
NSL Amendments in the 109th Congress ................................................................................... 7
Post-Amendment NSL Attributes .................................................................................................... 8
Addressees and Certifying Officials .......................................................................................... 8
Purpose, Standards, Information Covered ................................................................................. 8
Confidentiality ........................................................................................................................... 9
Judicial Review and Enforcement ........................................................................................... 10
Dissemination .......................................................................................................................... 11
Liability, Fees and Oversight ................................................................................................... 11
Inspector General’s Reports ........................................................................................................... 13
The First IG Report ................................................................................................................. 13
Exigent Letters .................................................................................................................. 15
The Second IG Report ............................................................................................................. 16
The Third IG Report ................................................................................................................ 16
Post-Amendment Judicial Action .................................................................................................. 17
Recommendations of the President’s Review Group ..................................................................... 21
Appendixes .................................................................................................................................... 24
12 U.S.C. 3414 (text) ............................................................................................................... 24
18 U.S.C. 2709 (text) ............................................................................................................... 26
15 U.S.C. 1681u (text) ............................................................................................................. 28
15 U.S.C. 1681v (text) ............................................................................................................. 31
Section 802 of the National Security Act (50 U.S.C. 3162) (text) .......................................... 32
18 U.S.C. 1510 (text) ............................................................................................................... 34
P.L. 109-177, Section 118 (text) .............................................................................................. 34
P.L. 109-177, Section 119 (text) .............................................................................................. 35
18 U.S.C. 3511 (text) ............................................................................................................... 37
Tables
Table 1. Profile of the Current NSL Statutes ................................................................................. 12
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 39
________________________________________________________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.