EFF: The Fourth Amendment Is Not Top Secret

EFF is requesting that the judge in its FOIA for the October 3, 2011 John Bates FISA Court opinion, Amy Berman Jackson, review the redactions currently in the document to ensure they are properly classified. (h/t Mike Scarcella) It argues the court should undertake such a review because disclosure of the things DOJ had previously claimed were Top Secret has now proven “the agency’s previous blanket withholding assertions were overbroad and wholly without merit.”

To support that case, they point to this passage originally withheld from production.

Upon even a cursory review of the Opinion, it is apparent, DOJ’s blanket exemption claims were far broader than the law allows. For example, this passage, according to the agency, was appropriately “classified at the TOP SECRET level” and withheld from the Opinion:

The Fourth Amendment provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Opinion at 67 (reciting Fourth Amendment); see also Bradley Decl., ¶ 5 (Opinion “withheld in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions b(1) and b(3)”).

Now, I’m actually not sure about this argument. In recent years, after all, the Fourth Amendment has been almost entirely disappeared without a trace. I wouldn’t be surprised if the government had disappeared it as a conscious policy decision. So perhaps they really do maintain that the Fourth Amendment must now be hidden pursuant to the Executive Order governing classified information.

Technically, the government previously argued that revealing the existence and text of the Fourth Amendment would cause exceptionally grave harm to the United States — that’s what the Top Secret classification it withheld this material under means. [Update: Or, as Nigel puts it, that the opinion referenced the Fourth. Except that’s even more absurd because the FOIA was a response to Ron Wyden’s declassification of a statement that said the FISC had found in this opinion that the program violated the Fourth.]

We’ll see whether Judge Jackson agrees that was a reasonable claim.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+7Email to someone

8 Responses to EFF: The Fourth Amendment Is Not Top Secret

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @tse2935 Saw one of those close up too, eating a dead dear. I still vote bald eagle.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Seriously, "SKIDMORE v. ZEPPELIN et al" may be one of most awesome captions ever. Should actually read RANDY CALIFORNIA v. ZEPPELIN et al
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Not just roids, but hemorrhoids. https://t.co/XbEjLSb65I
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @BlanksSlate Dammit, and I wasn't even through discussing the last police shooting. Internet is fickle.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz How sweep it is: https://t.co/gXG9j7f6uE
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Are the Sawx beating the Yanks? Yes? That is a good day.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DonnaDiva Yeah, I've been conned. Good one!
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DonnaDiva Yeah, shit, 30 yrs of criminal law and I have no clue of what is scam. Probably I need a Clinton to show me a real scam.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @DonnaDiva @peterdaou @kdrum That is beyond hilarious.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Also anybody who thinks Joe Biden is cuddly instead of a bought off asshole, or Jack Danforth+Hatch are reasonable https://t.co/7avXObIZNA
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Anybody reading a Clarence Thomas opinion or supporting obstruction of Merrick Garland ought have to watch HBO's "Confirmation".
3hreplyretweetfavorite
October 2013
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031