Opinion ID: 2960271
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutionality of the NSL Statutes

Text: (a) Basic approach. Turning to the First Amendment issues with respect to the NSL statutes as thus construed, we believe that the proper path to decision lies between the broad positions asserted by the parties. Although the nondisclosure requirement is in some sense a prior restraint, as urged by the Plaintiffs, it is not a typical example of such a restriction for it is not a restraint imposed on those who customarily wish to exercise rights of free expression, such as speakers in public fora, distributors of literature, or exhibitors of movies. Cf. Seattle Times, 467 U.S. at 33 (noting that prohibition on disclosure of material obtained through pretrial discovery was “not the kind of classic prior restraint that requires exacting First Amendment scrutiny”).12 And although the nondisclosure requirement is triggered by the content of a category of information, that category, consisting of the fact of receipt of an NSL and some related details, is far more limited than the broad categories of information that have 12 We note that none of the decisions discussing the appropriateness or limits of grand jury secrecy has referred to a nondisclosure requirement in that context as a prior restraint. See also McGehee, 718 F.2d at 1147 (noting that neither the CIA’s classification of portions of a former employee’s proposed book as top secret nor a court order rejecting a First Amendment challenge “constitutes a prior restraint in the traditional sense”). -32- been at issue with respect to typical content-based restrictions. Cf. Consolidated Edison, 447 U.S. at 537. On the other hand, we do not accept the Government’s contentions that the nondisclosure requirement can be considered to satisfy First Amendment standards based on analogies to secrecy rules applicable to grand juries, judicial misconduct proceedings, and certain interactions between individuals and governmental entities. The justification for grand jury secrecy inheres in the nature of the proceedings. As the Supreme Court has noted, such secrecy serves several interests common to most such proceedings, including enhancing the willingness of witnesses to come forward, promoting truthful testimony, lessening the risk of flight or attempts to influence grand jurors by those about to be indicted, and avoiding public ridicule of those whom the grand jury declines to indict. See Douglas Oil Co. of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 218-19 (1979). Although these interests do not warrant a prohibition on disclosure of a witness’s own testimony after the term of the grand jury has ended, see Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624, 630-36 (1990), they generally suffice to maintain grand jury secrecy against First Amendment claims to divulge information a witness obtained through participation in the grand jury process. See Hoffman-Pugh, 338 F.3d at 1139-40. Unlike the grand jury proceeding, as to which interests in secrecy arise from the nature of the proceeding, the nondisclosure -33- requirement of subsection 2709(c) is imposed at the demand of the Executive Branch under circumstances where secrecy might or might not be warranted, depending on the circumstances alleged to justify such secrecy. The Government’s analogy to permissible limitations on disclosures in connection with judicial misconduct proceedings also fails to justify the nondisclosure requirement of subsection 2709(c). We considered First Amendment challenges to nondisclosure requirements imposed with respect to judicial misconduct proceedings in Kamasinski. Initially, we noted the interests in confidentiality in such proceedings that the Supreme Court had identified in Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978). See Kamasinski, 44 F.3d at 110. These interests are: “(1) encouraging the filing of complaints; (2) protecting judges from unwarranted complaints; (3) . . . avoiding premature announcement of groundless complaints; and (4) facilitating the work of the commission by giving it flexibility to accomplish its mission through voluntary retirement or resignation of offending judges.” Id.; see Landmark, 435 U.S. at 835-37. Again, unlike the context of subsection 2709(c), these considerations inhere in the nature of judicial misconduct proceedings. In Kamasinski, we ruled that disclosure of the substance of an individual’s complaint could not be prohibited, see 44 F.3d at 110, but that the First Amendment permitted prohibition of disclosure of the fact that an -34- individual had filed a complaint or had testified, and of information gained through interaction with the misconduct commission, see id. at 111. We noted, however, that these prohibitions were justified in part by their cessation once the commission had determined whether or not there was probable cause that judicial misconduct had occurred. See id. at 112. That temporal limitation, important in the balance of governmental versus free speech interests, is absent from the nondisclosure requirement of subsection 2709(c). The Government’s analogy to certain interactions between an individual and governmental entities is also unavailing. The Government seeks to enlist cases involving classification of former CIA employees’ information as top secret, see United States v. Snepp, 897 F.2d 138 (4th Cir. 1990), and United States v. Marchetti, 466 F.2d 1309 (4th Cir. 1972), and a prohibition on disclosure of information obtained by a litigant through court-ordered discovery, see Seattle Times, 467 U.S. 20. We fail to appreciate the analogy between the individuals or the entity seeking disclosure in those cases and John Doe, Inc., who had no interaction with the Government until the Government imposed its nondisclosure requirement upon it. The nondisclosure requirement of subsection 2709(c) is not a typical prior restraint or a typical content-based restriction warranting the most rigorous First Amendment scrutiny. On the other hand, the Government’s analogies to nondisclosure prohibitions in -35- other contexts do not persuade us to use a significantly diminished standard of review. In any event, John Doe, Inc., has been restrained from publicly expressing a category of information, albeit a narrow one, and that information is relevant to intended criticism of a governmental activity. See Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1034 (1991) (“There is no question that speech critical of the exercise of the State’s power lies at the very center of the First Amendment.”); Landmark, 435 U.S. at 838 (“Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The panel is not in agreement as to whether, in this context, we should examine subsection 2709(c) under a standard of traditional strict scrutiny or under a standard that, in view of the context, is not quite as “exacting” a form of strict scrutiny, Seattle Times, 467 U.S. at 33. Ultimately, this disagreement has no bearing on our disposition because, as we discuss below, the only two limitations on NSL procedures required by First Amendment procedural standards would be required under either degree of scrutiny. We note that, for purposes of the litigation in this Court, the Government has conceded that strict scrutiny is the applicable standard. (b) Strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny review, the Government -36- must demonstrate that the nondisclosure requirement is “narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest,” Playboy Entertainment, 529 U.S. at 813, and that there are no “less restrictive alternatives [that] would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve,” Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 874 (1997). Since “[i]t is obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation,” Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted), the principal strict scrutiny issue turns on whether the narrow tailoring requirement is met, and this issue, as the District Court observed, essentially concerns the process by which the nondisclosure requirement is imposed and tested, see Doe II, 500 F. Supp. 2d at 399. With subsections 2709(c) and 3511(b) interpreted as set forth above, see Part III, supra, two aspects of that process remain principally at issue: the absence of a requirement that the Government initiate judicial review of the lawfulness of a nondisclosure requirement and the degree of deference a district court is obliged to accord to the certification of senior governmental officials in ordering nondisclosure.13 13 The Plaintiffs challenged the nondisclosure requirement on the ground that the discretion vested in senior FBI officials in determining whether to issue an NSL was unconstitutionally broad, see Shuttlesworth, 394 U.S. 147. The District Court rejected this claim. -37- (i) Absence of requirement that the Government initiate judicial review. The Plaintiffs alleged, and the District Court agreed, that the third Freedman procedural requirement applies to the NSL statutes, requiring the Government to initiate judicial review of its imposition of a nondisclosure requirement. See Freedman, 380 U.S. at 58-59. The Government advances several arguments why the third Freedman safeguard should not apply to judicial review of the nondisclosure requirement. First, the Government contends that it would be unduly burdened if it had to initiate a lawsuit to enforce the nondisclosure requirement in the more than 40,000 NSL requests that were issued in 2005 alone, according to the 2007 report of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (“OIG Report”).14 See Doe II, 500 F. Supp. 2d at 390. Related to this argument is the point, advanced in the Government’s brief to distinguish Freedman, that “there is no reason See Doe II, 500 F. Supp. 2d at 406-09. In this Court, the Plaintiffs renewed this argument only in footnotes. Under the circumstances, we deem the issue forfeited on appeal. See United States v. Restrepo, 986 F.2d 1462, 1463 (2d Cir. 1993) (“We do not consider an argument mentioned only in a footnote to be adequately raised or preserved for appellate review.”). 14 An unclassified version of the OIG Report, formally titled “A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Use of National Secu r i t y L e t t e r s , ” i s a v a i l a b l e at , last visited Oct. 20, 2008. An unclassified version of a follow-up 2008 OIG Report, formally titled “A Review of the FBI’s Use of National Security Letters: Assessment of Corrective Actions and Examination of NSL Usage i n 2 0 0 6 , ” i s a v a i l a b l e a t , last visited Oct. 20, 2008. -38- to believe that most recipients of NSLs wish to disclose that fact to anyone.” Br. for Appellants at 33. Instead of determining whether, as the Government contends, a burden of initiating litigation can prevent application of the third Freedman procedural safeguard, we consider an available means of minimizing that burden, use of which would substantially avoid the Government’s argument. The Government could inform each NSL recipient that it should give the Government prompt notice, perhaps within ten days, in the event that the recipient wishes to contest the nondisclosure requirement. Upon receipt of such notice, the Government could be accorded a limited time, perhaps 30 days, to initiate a judicial review proceeding to maintain the nondisclosure requirement, and the proceeding would have to be concluded within a prescribed time, perhaps 60 days. In accordance with the first and second Freedman safeguards, the NSL could inform the recipient that the nondisclosure requirement would remain in effect during the entire interval of the recipient’s decision whether to contest the nondisclosure requirement, the Government’s prompt application to a court, and the court’s prompt adjudication on the merits. See Freedman, 380 U.S. at 58. The NSL could also inform the recipient that the nondisclosure requirement would remain in effect if the recipient declines to give the Government notice of an intent to challenge the requirement or, upon a challenge, if the Government -39- prevails in court. If the Government is correct that very few NSL recipients have any interest in challenging the nondisclosure requirement (perhaps no more than three have done so thus far), this “reciprocal notice procedure” would nearly eliminate the Government’s burden to initiate litigation (with a corresponding minimal burden on NSL recipients to defend numerous lawsuits). Thus, the Government’s litigating burden can be substantially minimized, and the resulting slight burden is not a reason for precluding application of the third Freedman safeguard. The Government’s second argument for not applying Freedman’s third safeguard relies on an attempt to analogize the nondisclosure requirement in NSLs to nondisclosure requirements imposed in the context of pre-existing interaction with a governmental activity. Unlike the movies subject to licensing in Freedman, which were created independently of governmental activity, the information kept secret by an NSL, the Government contends, is “information that the recipient learns by (and only through) his participation in the [G]overnment’s own investigatory processes.” Br. for Appellants at 31. Although the governmental interaction distinction has validity with respect to the litigant obtaining discovery material in Seattle Times and the former CIA employees seeking to disclose sensitive material in Marchetti and Snepp, we think it has no application to an ECSP with no relevant governmental interaction prior to receipt of an NSL. The recipient’s -40- “participation” in the investigation is entirely the result of the Government’s action. The Government also relies on analogies to secrecy requirements in grand jury and judicial misconduct proceedings, analogies we have previously rejected. See Part IV(a), supra. Third, the Government seeks to avoid Freedman’s third requirement on the ground that the risk of administrative error “is significantly smaller under [sub]section 2709(c) than under licensing schemes like the one in Freedman.” Br. for Appellants at 33. Although the risk of error may be smaller, it remains sufficient to require a judicial review procedure that conforms to Freedman. The OIG Report concluded that “‘the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies.’” Doe II, 500 F. Supp. 2d at 392 (quoting OIG Report at 124). Fourth, the Government points out that the Supreme Court did not apply the third Freedman requirement to the licensing scheme that was challenged in FW/PBS, which concerned licenses for sexually oriented businesses. However, the distinctions with Freedman noted by the Court in FW/PBS point in favor of applying the third Freedman requirement to subsection 2709(c). First, the Court noted that the licensing authority was not “passing judgment on the content of any protected speech,” but was performing the “ministerial action” of “review[ing] the general qualifications of each license applicant.” -41- FW/PBS, 493 U.S. at 229. Under subsection 2709(c), however, the Government is exercising discretion to prohibit disclosure of speech on a topic of significant public concern. Second, the Court noted that the license applicant in FW/PBS had “every incentive” to initiate a judicial challenge to a license denial because the license was “the key to the applicant’s obtaining and maintaining a business,” id. at 229-30, a greater incentive than the movie distributor had in Freedman, “where only one film was censored,” id. at 229. The typical NSL recipient, by contrast, who runs a business that is in no sense dependent on revealing the receipt of an NSL, has little if any incentive to initiate a court challenge in order to speak publicly about such receipt. FW/PBS does not provide a basis for ignoring the third Freedman requirement. We acknowledge, however, that the nondisclosure requirement of subsection 2709(c) is not facially a licensing scheme of the sort at issue in Freedman. Unlike an exhibitor of movies, John Doe, Inc., did not intend to speak and was not subject to any administrative restraint on speaking prior to the Government’s issuance of an NSL. Nevertheless, once the NSL arrived, John Doe, Inc., did wish to speak publicly about it and was prohibited from doing so by an administrative order. Freedman’s third requirement cannot be disregarded simply because subsection 2709(c) does not impose a traditional licensing scheme. -42- The availability of a minimally burdensome reciprocal notice procedure for governmental initiation of judicial review and the inadequacy of the Government’s attempts to avoid the third Freedman safeguard persuade us that this safeguard, normally required where strict scrutiny applies, must be observed. Therefore, in the absence of Government-initiated judicial review, subsection 3511(b) is not narrowly tailored to conform to First Amendment procedural standards. We conclude, as did the District Court, see Doe II, 500 F. Supp. 2d at 401-06, that subsection 3511(b) does not survive either traditional strict scrutiny or a slightly less exacting measure of such scrutiny. (ii) Deference to administrative discretion. The Plaintiffs contended, and the District Court agreed, that the judicial review contemplated by subsection 3511(b) authorizes a degree of deference to the Executive Branch that is inconsistent with First Amendment standards. Although acknowledging that “national security is a compelling interest justifying nondisclosure in certain situations,” id. at 418, the District Court faulted the review provision in several respects. First, the Court stated that the statute “requires the court to blindly credit a finding that there ‘may’ be a reason-- potentially any conceivable and not patently frivolous reason--for it to believe disclosure will result in a certain harm.” Id. Our construction of the statute, however, avoids that concern. As indicated above, see Part III, supra, we interpret subsection 3511(b) -43- to place on the Government the burden to show a “good” reason to believe that disclosure may result in an enumerated harm, i.e., a harm related to “an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities,” 18 U.S.C. § 2709(b)(1), (2), and to place on a district court an obligation to make the “may result” finding only after consideration, albeit deferential, of the Government’s explanation concerning the risk of an enumerated harm. Assessing the Government’s showing of a good reason to believe that an enumerated harm may result will present a district court with a delicate task. While the court will normally defer to the Government’s considered assessment of why disclosure in a particular case may result in an enumerated harm related to such grave matters as international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, it cannot, consistent with strict scrutiny standards, uphold a nondisclosure requirement on a conclusory assurance that such a likelihood exists. In this case, the director of the FBI certified that “the disclosure of the NSL itself or its contents may endanger the national security of the United States.” To accept that conclusion without requiring some elaboration would “cast Article III judges in the role of petty functionaries, persons required to enter as a court judgment an executive officer’s decision, but stripped of capacity to evaluate independently whether the executive’s decision is -44- correct.” Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417, 426 (1995). In showing why disclosure would risk an enumerated harm, the Government must at least indicate the nature of the apprehended harm and provide a court with some basis to assure itself (based on in camera presentations where appropriate) that the link between disclosure and risk of harm is substantial.15 As the Government acknowledges, “Nothing in [subs]ection 3511(b) would require a district court to confine judicial review to the FBI’s necessarily unelaborated public statement about the need for nondisclosure. The provisions in [subs]ections 3511(d) and (e) for ex parte and in camera review provide a ready mechanism for the FBI to provide a more complete explanation of its reasoning, and the court is free to elicit such an explanation as part of the review process.” Reply Br. for Appellants at 10 n.4. We have every confidence that district judges can discharge their review responsibility with faithfulness to First Amendment considerations and without intruding on the prerogative of the Executive Branch to exercise its judgment on matters of national security. Such a judgment is not to be second-guessed, but a court must receive some indication that the judgment has been soundly 15 The Government sought to amplify its grounds for nondisclosure in a classified declaration submitted ex parte to the District Court and made available for our in camera review. This declaration will be available to the District Court on remand. -45- reached. As the Supreme Court has noted in matters of similar gravity, the Constitution “envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004). The District Court’s second reason for considering the judicial review procedure of subsection 3511(b) deficient was a perceived preclusion of a court’s authority, when presented with a “plausible, reasonable, and specific” enumerated harm, to balance “the potential harm against the particular First Amendment interest raised by a particular challenge.” Doe II, 500 F. Supp. 2d at 418. We see no deficiency in this regard. The balance sought by the District Court is an important aspect of judicial review of prior restraints. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). That is why we have interpreted the statutory standard to permit a nondisclosure requirement only upon an adequate demonstration that a good reason exists reasonably to apprehend a risk of an enumerated harm, and have expressly read the enumerated harms as being linked to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. As a result of this interpretation, the balance sought by the District Court is now inherent in the statutory standard. A demonstration of a reasonable likelihood of potential harm, related to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, will virtually always outweigh the First Amendment interest in speaking about such a -46- limited and particularized occurrence as the receipt of an NSL and will suffice to maintain the secrecy of the fact of such receipt. The District Court’s third objection to the judicial review procedure is far more substantial. The Court deemed inconsistent with strict scrutiny standards the provision of subsections 3511(b)(2) and (b)(3) specifying that a certification by senior governmental officials that disclosure may “endanger the national security of the United States or interfere with diplomatic relations . . . shall be treated as conclusive unless the court finds that the certification was made in bad faith.” 18 U.S.C. § 3511(b)(2). See Doe II, 500 F. Supp. 2d at 419. We agree. There is not meaningful judicial review of the decision of the Executive Branch to prohibit speech if the position of the Executive Branch that speech would be harmful is “conclusive” on a reviewing court, absent only a demonstration of bad faith. To accept deference to that extraordinary degree would be to reduce strict scrutiny to no scrutiny, save only in the rarest of situations where bad faith could be shown. Under either traditional strict scrutiny or a less exacting application of that standard, some demonstration from the Executive Branch of the need for secrecy is required in order to conform the nondisclosure requirement to First Amendment standards. The fiat of a governmental official, though senior in rank and doubtless honorable in the execution of official duties, cannot displace the judicial -47- obligation to enforce constitutional requirements. “Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive.” United States v. Smith, 899 F.2d 564, 569 (6th Cir. 1990).