Court Upholds Gag Orders in National Security Letters

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco confirmed a lower court decision Monday that gag orders included in FBI National Security Letters (NSLs) do not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s free speech protections. 

It has been a long journey to this decision (PDF) centered around five NSLs; three received by CREDO in 2011 and 2013, and two received by Cloudflare in 2012. The two organizations petitioned the district court to have both the information requests and the non-disclosure requirements of the NSLs set aside.

The district court decided that the 2006 NSL Law was unconstitutional and enjoined the government from issuing new requests and enforcing the gag (but stayed the decision pending a government appeal). It did not set aside the existing five NSLs. CREDO and Cloudflare, and the government, appealed the decision.

With the appeals pending, the government enacted the USA FREEDOM Act, which became effective June 2, 2015. Given the new law, the appeals court sent the matter back to the district court. This time, the lower court decided that the NSL law, as amended, is constitutional, and that the FBI had shown sufficient cause. It allowed the government’s cross-petition to enforce the NSLs and gags, barring the two 2013 CREDO NSLs.

CREDO and Cloudflare appealed the decision to uphold three of the NSLs, and the government appealed the decision to set aside the two 2013 CREDO NSLs. Meanwhile, the FBI closed its investigations pertaining to the three remaining NSLs, and voluntarily and partly lifted the gagging orders.

But CREDO and Cloudflare persisted, arguing that the whole concept of gagging NSLs contravenes the constitutional right to free speech.

It is this final petition that was rejected by the appeals court on Monday. Ironically, it is the FREEDOM Act that upholds the decision. The FREEDOM Act enforces greater administrative care over the delivery of NSLs and gag orders — but if that care is taken, the requests become legal. That, at least, is the decision of the Ninth.

“We conclude,” announced the three judges, “that § 2709(c)’s nondisclosure requirement imposes a content-based restriction that is subject to, and withstands, strict scrutiny. We further hold that, assuming the nondisclosure requirement is the type of prior restraint for which the Freedman procedural safeguards are required, the NSL law provides those safeguards. The nondisclosure requirement in the NSL law therefore does not run afoul of the First Amendment.

“It is not yet known whether CREDO and Cloudflare will continue the fight and appeal to the Supreme Court. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) staff attorney Andrew Crocker tweeted, “Disappointing 9th Cir ruling in EFF’s national security letter case on behalf of @CREDOMobile @Cloudflare. More soon.” He added, “Especially disappointing is the court’s failure to address permanent NSL gags, which always violate the First Amendment.”

In a statement emailed to SecurityWeek, CREDO CEO Ray Morris said, “We are disappointed in the Ninth Circuit’s decision and are considering our options for next steps. At CREDO, we know what an uphill battle challenging these gag orders can be and feel that the court missed an opportunity to protect the First Amendment rights of companies that want to speak out in the future.”

Last week, EFF published its 2017 report, Who Has Your Back? It explains the issues behind NSLs. “NSLs are akin to subpoenas requiring service providers — including technology companies, phone companies, and ISPs — to hand over data to the FBI about users’ private communications and Internet activity. These orders are almost always accompanied by gag orders preventing the recipients from ever revealing the letter’s existence and which have contributed to widespread abuse of this investigatory tool.”

Although Cloudflare was not included in the EFF study, CREDO is one of just 9 companies out of 26 awarded five stars for its attitudes and attempts to protect user privacy.

“Cloudflare’s approach to law enforcement requests is that we are supportive of their work but believe that any requests we receive must adhere to the due process of law and be subject to judicial oversight,” Doug Kramer, General Counsel at Cloudflare told SecurityWeek. “It is not Cloudflare’s intent to make their job any harder, or easier. In 2013, we challenged an FBI request for customer information on a confidential basis through an NSL, which was not an easy decision, because we felt it violated that principle. Although decisions by a federal court and a new statute since that time have improved the NSL process, we think there is additional work to be done and are disappointed the Ninth Circuit ruled the current practice sufficient.”

*Updated with comment from Cloudflare

view counter

Kevin Townsend is a Senior Contributor at SecurityWeek. He has been writing about high tech issues since before the birth of Microsoft. For the last 15 years he has specialized in information security; and has had many thousands of articles published in dozens of different magazines – from The Times and the Financial Times to current and long-gone computer magazines.

Previous Columns by Kevin Townsend:

Tags: