F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

A N N A J

. S M I T H , Plaintiff-Appellant
,

v

.

B AR A C K O B AM

A , in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; J AME S R. C L AP P E R , in his official capacity as Director of National I

ntellig ence; M I C HA E L S. R O G E R S , in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Ag ency

and Chief of the Central Security

Service; A S H T ON C AR T E R , in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; L O R

E T T A E. L Y N C H , Attorney

General; J AM E S B

. C O M E Y , in his official capacity as Director of the F e d eral B ureau of I nvestig ation, * Defendants-Appellees

. N o. 14-35555

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00257- B L W

ORDER

Appeal from the United States District Court

f or the District of I daho B . L y nn W inmill, Chief District J udg e, PresidingS MI T H V

. O B AM A 2
Argu ed December 8, 2014

Submitted March 15, 2016 Seattle, W a shing ton

F iled March 22, 2016

B efore: Michael Daly

Hawkins, M. Marg aret McKeown,

a nd Richard C. Tallman, Circuit J udg es.

SUMMARY *

USA F REEDOM Act

The panel held that Anna Smith’s claims challeng ing the ong o i n g collection of her metadata under section 215 of the USA PATRI OT A ct (ex pired but revived b y the USA F REEDOM Act of 2015) were moot, a nd re m a n d ed to the d i s t rict court for their dismissal; and remanded Smith’s remaining claims for the district court to determine whether they a re moot, and if not, to resolve the claims in lig ht of an intervening chang e in the law.

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o part o f th e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b eenp rep ared b y

co urt staf

f f o r th e co nv en i en ce o f

th e read er.S MI T H V

. O B AM A 3

COUNSEL

Peter J

. Smith I V ( argued) and Lucas T. Mal e k
, S m i th & Ma l e k, PL L C, Coeur d’Alene, I daho; Cindy Cohn, David Greene, Hanni F akhoury and Andrew C r o c ker, Electronic F r o nt i e r F o undation, San F rancisco, California; J ameel Ja f f e r , Alex Abdo a

nd Pat r ick T o omey , American Civil L iberties Union F oundation, New Y o r k
, N ew York; Richard Alan Eppink, Ameri c a

n Civil L iberties Union of I daho F oundation, B oise, I daho, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

H. Thomas B y

ron I I I (arg

ued); J oy c e R. B rand a , A cting Assistant Attorney Ge n e r a l; B enjamin C. Miz er, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; W endy J

. Olson, United States Attorney ; Doug las N. L etter a n d Henry C. Whitaker, Civil Division, United States D e p artment of J ustice, W a shing ton, D.C., for Defendants-Appellees.

Paul M. Smith, Michael T

. B org ia, J enner & B lock L L P, W a shing ton, D .C.; Michael Davidson, W ashing ton, D.C.; Kate A

. Martin, Cen ter for National Security Studies, W a shing ton, D

. C

. ; J oseph Onek, The Raben Group, W a shing ton, D .C., for Amicus Curiae Center for National Security Studies.

Marc Rotenberg
, Alan B utler, J u lia Horwitz and J e ramie Scott, Electronic Privacy Information Center, W a shing ton, D. C

. , for Amici Curiae Electronic Privacy I nformation Center (EPI C) and T hirty -Three Technical Ex perts a nd L eg al Scholars.

Cat h e r ine R. Gellis, Sausalito, California; Michael H. Pag e and J oseph C. G ratz , D u r i e Tang ri L L P, San F rancisco,S MI T H V

. O B AM A 4

California, for Amicus Curiae National Association o f Criminal Defense L awy ers.

Thomas R. Bu rke, Davis W rig h t Tremaine L L P, San F rancisco, California; Edward J

. Davis, L inda Steinman a nd L acy H. K oonce, I I I , Davis W rig ht Tremaine L L P, New York, New York, for Amicus Curiae PEN A merican Center, I nc.

B ruce B r o w n , Katie Townsend and Hannah B loch-W ehba, Reporters Commi t t e e for F reedom of the Press, Arling ton, Virg inia; Kevin M. Go l dberg
, F letcher, Heald & Hildreth, P L C, Arling ton, Virg inia; Rachel Matteo-B oehm, B ry a n Cave L L P, San F rancisco, C a lifornia; David M. Giles, The E.W

. Scripps Company
, Cincinatti, Ohio; Peter Scheer, F irst Am e n d ment Coalition, San Rafael, California; Ly nn Oberlander, F irst L ook Media, I n c., New York, New Y ork; B arbara W. W all, Gannett Co., In c., McL ean, V i rg inia; Karole Morga n

- P r ag er and J uan Cornejo, The McClatchy C ompany , Sacramento, California; Charl e s D

. T o b i n , H o l l a n d & Knig ht L L P, Washing ton, D .C.; Mickey H

. O sterreich e r, B u ffalo, New York; J ennifer A. B org , North J e rsey Media Group I nc., W oodland P a rk, N ew J ersey ; Michael Kovaka, W a shing ton, D. C

. ; Kathleen A. Kirby
, W iley Rein L L P, W a shing ton, D.C.; J ohn B

. Kennedy , J ames A. McL aug hlin and Kalea S. Clark, The W ashing ton Post, W a shing ton, D.C., for Amici Curiae Reporters C o m mittee for F reedom o f the Press and 17 Media Org a niz ations.

Charles S. Sims, Proskauer Rose L L P, New Y ork, New York, for Amici Curiae Senato r Ron W yden, Senator Mark Udall and Senator Martin Heinrich.S MI T H V

. O B AM A 5

ORDER

Anna Smith challeng es the collection of her metadata pursuant to § 215 of the USA PATRI OT Act of 2001, Pub. L

. No. 107-56, sec. 2 1 5, § 501, 115 Stat. 272, 287-88. That section e x pired on J une 1, 2015, but was revived by the USA F REEDOM Act of 2015, Pub. L

. N o. 114-23, tit. I , 129 Stat. 268, 269–77 (2015) (codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1861). The USA F REED O M A c t p rohibits a ny further bulk collection o f tang ible thing s pursuant to § 1861 after November 28, 2015. See id. § 103, 129 Stat. at 272; see also id. § 1 09(a), 129 Stat. at 276.

On November 24, 2 015, the F oreig n Intellig en c e Surveillance Court ( “ F I SC”) approved the g overnment’s

re q u e s t to retain already collected metadata for two limited purposes. Opinion & Order, In re Application of the FBI for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things
, No. B R 15-99 at 1

– 2 (F I SC Ct. Nov. 24, 2015). F irst, for a period ending on F ebruary 29, 2016, the court a uthoriz ed limited

access to the metadata by technical personnel to verify the completeness and accuracy o f c all detail r e cords produced under targ eted production orders issued by t h e FI SC a fter November 28, 2015. Id. at 6–7. Second, the court p ermitted the g overnment to retain the metadata for litig ation purposes after F ebrua r y 29, 2016, subject to conditions set out in an earlier order. I

d. at 7–8.

On J anuar

y 8
, 2016, the g overnment filed in the F I SC a report ex pressing its view that, althoug h the USA F REEDOM Act mooted claims for prospective injunctive relief (i.e., requests to h alt bulk collection pursuant to § 1861), it did not moot claims for retrospective relief ( i.e., inventory a nd destruction of a lready collected metadata). Report D e s c ri b i n gS MI T H V

. O B AM A 6

the Government’s Assessment W hether the End o f B ulk Collection H as Mooted Claims of Certain Plaintiffs, In re Application of the F

BI for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things
, No. B R 15-99 at 1, 6–7 (F I SC, filed J an. 8, 2016).

W e hold t h a t Smith’s claims related to the ong oing collection of metadata are moot and v acate and remand for their dismissal.

As for Smith’s remaining claims, including he r r e quest that th e g overnment purg e all of her metadata collected pursuant to § 1861, we remand this case for the district court to determine w h et h e r they are moot and, if they are not, for the district court to resolve them in l i gh t o f the intervening chang e in law. Each p arty shall bear its own costs o n appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED.