Minnesota Law Review

Note, Gagging on the First Amendment: Assessing Challenges to the Reauthorization Act’s Nondisclosure Provision

In September, 2007, a federal court struck down the nondisclosure provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which governed the use of national security letters (NSLs). While civil liberties groups praised the decision, the FBI mourned the loss of a crucial tool in its antiterrorism investigations. Indeed, the FBI reports that it employed NSLs frequently to obtain basic electronic communications information on suspected terrorists before using that information to justify to courts more extensive searches. The FBI’s NSL strategy depends on the secrecy that the ECPA’s nondisclosure provision guaranteed. Now, without a valid nondisclosure provision, the FBI can no longer effectively use a major antiterrorist surveillance tool.

In striking down the ECPA’s nondisclosure provision, the trial court applied strict scrutiny and held that the nondisclosure provision violated the First Amendment. The government, in defending the NSL statute, unsuccessfully argued for intermediate scrutiny based on prior rulings on grand jury secrecy. Based on the oft-overlooked national security jurisprudence, this Note offers a critique of the NSL cases and concludes that intermediate scrutiny is the more appropriate standard. Reviewing courts should recognize that NSL cases invoke critical aspects of national security in ways that typical First Amendment cases do not. Intermediate scrutiny in matters of national security would more effectively balance individual liberties against the crucial interests of national security that the Constitution charges the executive branch with protecting.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]