EFF Challenges Constitutionality of Telecom Immunity in Federal Court

by Erik Larson | October 21, 2008 at 12:12 pm

49 views | 0 Recommendations | 0 comments

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, public interest advocacy org for rights in the digital age, has filed a brief in Federal Court challenging the Constitutionality of the telecom immunity bill. EFF is arguing there is no Constitutional authority for giving authority to Attorney General Mukasey to certify the legality of the Bush Administration's 4th Amendment violating warrantless domestic spying program, and due process is being denied to Americans whose privacy was violated. The government hasn't denied the dragnet program, and EFF's filing includes 8 volumes of exhibits; documents, eyewitness accounts and testimony under oath.

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Thursday challenged the constitutionality of a law aimed at granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's illegal domestic wiretapping program.

In a brief filed in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, EFF argues that the flawed FISA Amendments Act (FAA) violates the federal government's separation of powers as established in the Constitution and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law. Signed into law earlier this year, the FAA allows for the dismissal of the lawsuits over the telecoms' participation in the warrantless surveillance program if the government secretly certifies to the court that either the surveillance did not occur, was legal, or was authorized by the president. Attorney General Michael Mukasey filed that classified certification with the court last month.

"The immunity law puts the fox in charge of the hen house, letting the Attorney General decide whether or not telecoms like AT&T can be sued for participating in the government's illegal warrantless surveillance," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "In our constitutional system, it is the judiciary's role as a co-equal branch of government to determine the scope of the surveillance and rule on whether it is legal, not the executive's. The Attorney General should not be allowed to unconstitutionally play judge and jury in these cases, which affect the privacy of millions of Americans."