Civil and Human Rights

RADIO (NPR): Intelligence Squared Debate: Does Mass Phone Data Collection Violate The 4th Amendment?

 

 

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

 

Legal scholars and courts have been wrangling for more than a year over whether the National Security Agency’s collection of millions of Americans’ phone records — a program first disclosed to the public by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 — violates those protections. Some legal experts disagree over whether the record collection even qualifies as a search or seizure, and, if it does, whether collecting those records is “unreasonable” or requires a warrant.

 

In a recent Intelligence Squared U.S. debate, two teams of constitutional law experts faced off on the motion “Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Records Violates The Fourth Amendment.” In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people to its side by the end is the winner.

 

Before the debate, the audience at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia voted 46 percent in favor of the motion and 17 percent against, with 37 percent undecided. After the debate, 66 percent agreed with the motion and 28 percent were opposed. That made the team arguing in favor of the motion the winner of the debate.

 

Those debating:

 

FOR THE MOTION

 

Alex Abdo is a staff attorney in the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. Currently, he is counsel in the ACLU’s lawsuit challenging the NSA’s phone-records program (ACLU v. Clapper). Abdo has been involved in the litigation of cases concerning the Patriot Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Navy brig in South Carolina. Prior to working at the ACLU, he served as a law clerk to Barbara M.G. Lynn, U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Texas, and Rosemary Barkett, U.S. circuit judge for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Elizabeth Wydra is the Constitutional Accountability Center’s chief counsel. She frequently participates in Supreme Court litigation and has argued several important cases in the federal courts of appeals. She joined CAC from private practice at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges in San Francisco, where she was an attorney working with former Stanford Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan in the firm’s Supreme Court/appellate practice. Previously, she was a supervising attorney and teaching fellow at the Georgetown University Law Center appellate litigation clinic, a law clerk for Judge James R. Browning of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and a lawyer at Shaw Pittman, a D.C. law firm. As a legal expert, she has appeared on television and public radio, has written for various media outlets and blogs, and has been published in several law reviews.

 

AGAINST THE MOTION

 

Stewart Baker practices law at Steptoe & Johnson, covering homeland security, cybersecurity, data protection, encryption, lawful intercepts, intelligence and law enforcement issues, and foreign investment regulation. He is the author of Skating on Stilts: Why We Aren’t Stopping Tomorrow’s Terrorism, a book on the security challenges posed by technology, and he writes on cybersecurity and privacy law at www.skatingonstilts.com. From 2005 to 2009, Baker was the first assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security. During 2004 and 2005, Baker served as general counsel of the WMD Commission investigating intelligence failures prior to the Iraq War. From 1992 to 1994, he was general counsel of the National Security Agency, where he led NSA and interagency efforts to reform commercial encryption and computer security law and policy. His book on these topics, The Limits of Trust: Cryptography, Governments, and Electronic Commerce, analyzes encryption and authentication laws in dozens of countries.

 

John Yoo is the Emanuel Heller professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author of Point of Attack: Preventive War, International Law, and Global Welfare as well as several books addressing presidential power, national security and the Constitution. Yoo has published numerous scholarly articles in the nation’s leading law journals and is a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, National Review and The Weekly Standard. He has served in all three branches of government, including as an official in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, as general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee and as a law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Declared Winner: For The Motion

Results

#

This program was broadcast on at least the following stations:

* KUT-FM (Austin, TX)

* WAMU-FM (Washington, DC)

* WNYC-FM (New York, NY)

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 11, 2024

The People Who Dismantled Affirmative Action Have a New Strategy to Crush Racial Justice

Slate
Last summer, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
April 12, 2024

TV (Gray TV): CAC’s Frazelle Joins Gray TV to Discuss Fourth Amendment Case at Supreme Court

Gray TV Washington News Bureau
Civil and Human Rights
April 22, 2024

RELEASE: Justices grapple with line-drawing but resist overturning important precedent in Eighth Amendment homelessness case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in City of...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
April 19, 2024

Will the Supreme Court Uphold the 14th Amendment and Block an Oregon Law Criminalizing Homelessness?

Nearly 38 million Americans live in poverty. In some areas and among some populations, entrenched economic...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
April 18, 2024

DEI critics were hoping that the Supreme Court’s Muldrow decision would undermine corporate diversity programs. It does no such thing

Fortune
The Supreme Court just delivered a big win for workers and workplace equality–but conservatives are...