Schuchardt v. Obama

Schuchardt v. Obama, Civil Action No. 14-705, 2015 WL 5732117 (W.D.Pa. Sept. 30, 2015)

This Constitutional and statutory complaint against the NSA’s collection and storage of “massive quantities of email and other data created by United States citizens” was dismissed for lack of standing. The plaintiff contended that his use of major Internet and telecommunications companies, including Gmail, Google, Yahoo, Dropbox, Facebook, and Verizon Wireless, meant that the government must have been “unlawfully intercepting, accessing, monitoring and/or storing” his private communications. In holding that this contention was insufficient to establish standing, the Court cited the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Amnesty International v. Clapper, 133 S.Ct. 1138 (2013) and the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Klayman v. Obama, No. 14-5004, 2015 WL 5058403 (Aug. 28, 2015), for the proposition that standing cannot be based “on naked averments that an individual’s communications must have been seized because the government operates a data collection program and the individual utilized the services of a large telecommunications company or companies.” At *6. The Court contrasted the situations there with the 2d Circuit’s holding that the plaintiffs in ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2015), had standing because documented NSA bulk telephony metadata Orders had been addressed to the telephone company, Verizon Business Services, to which they subscribed. Similarly, according to the Schuchardt Court, the 9th Cir. properly held, in Jewel v. National Security Agency, 673 F.3d 902 (2011) , that standing was established by detailed evidence about how the NSA intercepted the Internet communications of AT&T subscribers, such as the named plaintiff, at AT&T’s Folsom Street, San Francisco facility.

Leave a Reply