Restore the Fourth, along with P.A.N.D.A., Free the People and several other co-signing organizations, submitted a coalition letter to Senator Lindsay Graham. It urges that an amendment to the NDAA drafted by Sens. Paul and Lee be allowed to be debated. The amendment would remove the indefinite detention clause in this year’s NDAA, which is otherwise an annual bill authorizing the military’s budget.
The power of the executive to indefinitely detain anyone deemed a threat to national security was first added to the NDAA in 2011. This clause allows the President to detain anyone they choose without charge or due process.
Congress will vote on cloture on the NDAA amendment today, determining whether the Paul/Lee amendment will even get to be considered.
Department of State
November 3, 2017 – Restore the Fourth (RT4) and the Identity Project (IDP) have collaboratively submitted their formal comments to the U.S. Department of State regarding Proposed Information Collection: Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants. This supplementary procedure would subject certain applicants for visas for admission to the United States to the following additional inquiry items:
- Travel history during the last fifteen years, including source of funding for travel
- Address history during the last fifteen years
- Employment history during the last fifteen years
- All passport numbers and country of issuance held by the applicant
- Names and dates of birth for all siblings
- Name and dates of birth for all children
- Names and dates of birth for all current and former spouses, or civil or domestic partners
- Social media platforms and identifiers, also known as handles, used during the last five years
- Phone numbers and email addresses used during the last five years
RT4 and IDP address conflicts between this proposed policy and the U.S. Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This practice stands to encroach on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The proposed inquiries stand to be lacking in specificity or granularity. How comprehensive is the request for emails, phone numbers, and ‘social media’ handles? What is considered ‘social media’ in the absence of any statutory, regulatory, or legal definition? For example, is an applicant expected to remember every web site on which they have registered as a commenter? Are applicants expected to obtain and provide cellphone tower location tracking logs? Public transit or road-toll RFID-chip movement logs? License-plate reader motor vehicle movement logs? In-vehicle GPS logs? Or “merely” airline, train, intercity bus, and/or hotel reservation and ticketing records?
These additional inquiries exposes applicants to guilt by association based on family members, domestic partners, or people who provide funds for travel. They also expose applicants to legal sanctions in their home countries. For instance, Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally with which the U.S. Department of State might be expected to share information obtained through this collection of information. This could include information that could identity Saudi Arabian citizens or residents who have engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment but are considered capital crimes in their homeland, such as blasphemy.
The Department of State has been processing visa applications for almost two centuries without requiring this information. It is not necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department of State.
The Fourth Amendment Applies More Broadly than the Government is Making Out
By Danielle Kerem
Restore the Fourth filed an amicus brief today at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case, Araceli Rodriguez v. Lonnie Swartz, concerns the shooting death of 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez and raises critical Fourth Amendment questions with potentially significant consequences for American law enforcement conduct both abroad and at home.
On October 10, 2012, Jose Antonio was gunned down by United States Border Patrol agent Lonnie Swartz while walking home following a game of basketball in his Nogales, Mexico neighborhood. As he walked along a public street parallel to the U.S.-Mexico border, the teenager was shot in the back approximately 10 times by agent Swartz, who fired multiple rounds through the border fence from his position on American soil. Jose Antonio bled to death a short time later.
In July 2014, Jose Antonio’s mother – Araceli Rodriguez – filed a civil lawsuit in Arizona against the agent responsible for his death, alleging that Swartz had violated her son’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive and unjustified force. In response, Swartz’s legal team moved for dismissal of the case on the grounds that Jose Antonio was a Mexican citizen killed on Mexican territory and consequently not protected by the U.S. Constitution.
The court, however, partially denied the defendant’s motion, instead affirming that “under the facts alleged in this case, the Mexican national may avail himself to the protections of the Fourth Amendment and that the agent may not assert qualified immunity.” In July 2015, Swartz appealed the district court’s decision. In February 2016, the United States filed an amicus brief objecting to the district court’s finding that Jose Antonio benefited from Fourth Amendment protections and supporting reversal of the ruling. The Department of Justice contended that the “Fourth Amendment does not extend extraterritorially to aliens without significant voluntary connections to the United States,” grounding this interpretation in the 1990 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez Supreme Court decision.
In today’s amicus brief, Restore the Fourth – through our counsel at Subbaraman PLLC and the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic – advances two core arguments to address the Government’s misrepresentation of Fourth Amendment protections as well as misreading of the relevant case law. First, we contend that the Fourth Amendment, at a minimum, requires government searches and seizures of anyone to be reasonable. Second, we insist that the “substantial and voluntary connections” test articulated in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez determines what constitutes a reasonable search or seizure only when this test can be administered:
Restore the Fourth files this brief in order to address the United States’s misreading of Verdugo-Urquidez. The plurality did not erase the Fourth Amendment’s core demand that all government searches and seizures be “reasonable”—even extraterritorial searches and seizures of aliens. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008). Rather, the plurality merely established that the Fourth Amendment affords the government reasonable latitude when it is capable of reviewing an alien’s connections with the United States before searching or seizing him. Here, by contrast, Agent Swartz killed J.A. without any such review. His actions were thus patently unreasonable, even if one were to conclude that J.A. lacked substantial voluntary connections to the United States.
According to Alex Marthews, National Chair of Restore The Fourth, “since the misinterpreted Verdugo-Urquidez decision in 1990, we have built new and oppressive structures of immigration control, foreign policy and mass surveillance on the basis of being able to ignore some people’s unalienable rights, even in times of peace. The Fourth Amendment cannot be twisted to support this. Jose Antonio’s family, and every family affected by U.S. state power, deserve better.”
CVE Initiatives Perpetuate Discriminatory Law Enforcement Practices and Threaten Freedom of Expression
By Danielle Kerem
Belmont, MA – Today, Restore the Fourth and a coalition of civil rights organizations sent a joint letter to President Obama asking that he re-evaluate the ill-conceived and ineffective Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program. According to the government, CVE is an interagency initiative designed to “develop and implement a full-range of partnerships to support and enhance efforts by key stakeholders to prevent radicalization and recruitment to violence by terrorist organizations.” However, in practice, the program undermines community trust and cohesion, stigmatizes Muslims and Arab Americans, as well as risks criminalizing First Amendment-protected speech.
In particular, the coalition’s letter to the President outlined concerns related to the CVE program’s planned establishment of Shared Responsibility Committees (SRCs) – committees that would task educators, health workers, and religious leaders with identifying and reporting ‘radicalized’ community members. According to Restore the Fourth National Chair Alex Marthews, the SRCs “make a mockery of professional confidentiality, because the people they interview don’t know that the professional they’re interacting with is feeding information back to the FBI.”
In addition to cultivating a climate of distrust, the CVE program also endangers freedom of expression. For instance, the FBI’s “Don’t Be a Puppet” website promotes the policing of ideas by encouraging “members of the public and particularly teenagers to identify and report language they regard as being ‘extreme’ or ‘radical’.” Moreover, the government has been working aggressively to enlist the cooperation of Silicon Valley technology firms in facilitating “counter-messaging and content monitoring initiatives” on social media platforms.
According to Sue Udry, Executive Director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee / Defending Dissent Foundation, “CVE programs incorrectly, and unconstitutionally, focus on political and religious beliefs to cast suspicion on Muslims and dissidents. These programs are fanning the flames of Islamophobia, and must be opposed.”
In light of the lack of empirical research to support CVE programming as well as the serious concerns expressed in relation to the CVE initiative’s threats to freedom of expression, the letter to President Obama concluded with a call for the President to re-route “the funds for CVE to programs with better evidentiary basis for their positive effect on levels of violence.” The White House’s decision to do so would send an important “message to American Muslims and critics of the U.S. government’s foreign and domestic policies that you can indeed hold any belief that the First Amendment protects, without fear of U.S. government harassment.”