Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

[limpyhobbler]

Ultra-secret national security letters that come with a gag order on the recipient are an unconstitutional impingement on free speech, a federal judge in California ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered the government to stop issuing so-called NSLs across the board, in a stunning defeat for the Obama administration’s surveillance practice. However, she also stayed her order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We are very pleased that the Court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman, whose organization is representing a telecom that received an NSL in 2011. “The government’s gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience.”
...

After the telecom challenged the NSL, the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure and sued the company, arguing in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority....

complete piece: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/nsl-found-unconstitutional/

(Government claims it is illegal to challenge laws in court )

[99th_Monkey]

1. "it's like we have a 3rd branch of gov't or something"

a tweet from Greenwald reportedly.

[limpyhobbler]

2. LOL that's good to know.

[MotherPetrie]

3. Whoa. I hope this sticks. OTOH, even if it does, I expect the Obama admin. to just ignore it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. The Obama Administration would infringe upon Constitutionally protected free speech? To protect its

power to spy upon all of us in a manner as bad or worse than what was done in Russia and East Germany? And then claim that it is illegal to even challenge its actions in court?

In 2008, this would have surprised me. Now, not so much.

I wish that some people would stop excusing Obama's actions by calling him a "moderate" Republican. None of us should tolerate this on the grounds that this would be OK or expected with moderate Republicans, or it could be worse with the really nutty Republicans.