Patriot Act: Difference between revisions

The law is extremely controversial due to its authorization of [[indefinite detention without trial]] of immigrants, and due to the permission given to law enforcement to search property and records without the owner's consent or knowledge. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

== History ==

On May 11, 2012, President [[Barack Obama]] signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the Act:<ref name="foxnews">{{cite web|title=Obama Signs Last-Minute Patriot Act Extension|publisher=[[Fox News]]|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-signs-last-minute-patriot-act-extension/|date=May 27, 2011|access-date=May 27, 2011}}</ref> [[roving wiretap]]s, [[Section 215|searches of business records]], and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" (individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups).<ref name="Mascaro-2011">{{cite news|last=Mascaro|first=Lisa|title=Congress votes in time to extend key Patriot Act provisions|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-patriot-act-20110527,0,7749454.story|access-date=May 27, 2011|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=May 27, 2011}}</ref>

In November 2019, the renewal of the Patriot Act was included in the stop-gap government funding bill.<ref>{{Cite magazine | url=https://newrepublic.com/article/155793/hell-democrats-just-extend-patriot-act |title = Why the Hell Did Democrats Just Extend the Patriot Act?|magazine = The New Republic|date = November 20, 2019|last1 = Adler-Bell|first1 = Sam}}</ref> The expired provisions required renewal by March 15, 2020.<ref name=surveillancerenewal /> The Senate passed a 77-day extension in March 2020, but the House of Representatives did not pass the legislation before departing for recess on March 27, 2020. Instead, the Patriot Act was split into two measures as a means of explaining to the public that the Patriot Act would no longer openly be in effect.<ref name=renewal /><ref name=stillrenewal /><ref>{{Cite news|last=Savage|first=Charlie|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/us/politics/house-fisa-bill.html|title=House Departs Without Vote to Extend Expired F.B.I. Spy Tools|date=March 27, 2020|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=April 12, 2020|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/yes-section-215-expired-now-what|title=Yes, Section 215 Expired. Now What?|last=Crocker|first=India McKinney and Andrew|date=April 16, 2020|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|language=en|access-date=April 25, 2020}}</ref>

However, the [[American Library Association]] strongly objected to the provision, believing that library records are fundamentally different from ordinary business records, and that the provision would have a [[chilling effect]] on free speech. The association became so concerned that it adopted a resolution condemning the USA PATRIOT Act and urging members to defend free speech and protect patrons' privacy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=ifresolutions&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11891|title=Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users|date=January 29, 2003|publisher=[[American Library Association]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040212223746/https://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=ifresolutions&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11891|archive-date=February 12, 2004}}</ref>

In 2005, Library Connection, a nonprofit consortium of 27 libraries in Connecticut, known as the [[Connecticut Four]] worked with the ACLU to lift a gag order for library records, challenging the government's power under Section 505 to silence four citizens who wished to contribute to public debate on the PATRIOT Act. This case became known as [[Doe v. Gonzales]]. In May 2006, the government finally gave up its legal battle to maintain the gag order. In a summary of the actions of the Connecticut Four and their challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, Jones (2009: 223) notes: "Librarians need to understand their country's legal balance between the protection of freedom of expression and the protection of national security. Many librarians believe that the interests of national security, important as they are, have become an excuse for chilling the freedom to read."<ref>Jones, Barbara M. 2009. "Librarians Shushed No More: The USA Patriot Act, the 'Connecticut Four,' and Professional Ethics." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom 58, no. 6: 195, 221–223.</ref>

In a vote on February 8, 2011, the House of Representatives considered a further extension of the Act through the end of 2011.<ref name=politico-vote>{{cite news |title=Rank-and-file take down Patriot Act in House |work=[[Politico]]|date=February 8, 2011 |first1=Jake |last1=Breshahan |first2=Marin |last2=Cogan |url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49126.html }}</ref> House leadership moved the extension bill under suspension of the rules, which is intended for noncontroversial legislation and requires two-thirds majority to pass.<ref name=politico-vote /> After the vote, the extension bill did not pass; 277 members voted in favor, which was less than the 290 votes needed to pass the bill under suspension of the rules.<ref name=politico-vote /> Without an extension, the Act was set to expire on February 28, 2011. However, it eventually passed, 275–144.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00514:@@@L&summ2=m&#major |title=actions |publisher=Thomas.loc.gov |date=February 25, 2011 |access-date=May 16, 2012 |archive-date=August 25, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130825010625/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00514:@@@L&summ2=m&#major |url-status=dead }}</ref> The [[FISA Sunsets Extension Act]] of 2011 was signed into law February 25, 2011.

As NSL provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act had been struck by the courts<ref name="ACLUvDoJ" /> the reauthorization Act amended the law in an attempt to make them lawful. It provided for judicial review and the legal right of a recipient to challenge the validity of the letter. The reauthorization act still allowed NSLs to be closed and all evidence to be presented ''[[in camera]]'' and ''[[ex parte]]''.<ref>USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. [[United States House of Representatives|H.R.]] 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 115</ref> Gag provisions were maintained but were not automatic. They only occurred when the deputy assistant director of the FBI or a special agent in charge in a bureau field office certified that disclosure would result in "a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person".<ref name="ReauthNSLsGag">USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. [[United States House of Representatives|H.R.]] 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 116</ref> However, should there be no non-disclosure order, the defendant can disclose the fact of the NSL to anyone who can render them assistance in carrying out the letter, or to an attorney for legal advice. Again, however, the recipient was ordered to inform the FBI of such a disclosure.<ref name="ReauthNSLsGag" /> Because of the concern over the chilling effects of such a requirement, the ''Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act'' removed the requirement to inform the FBI that the recipient spoke about the NSL to their Attorney.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (U.S. [[United States Senate|S.]] 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 4.</ref> Later, the ''Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act'' excluded libraries from receiving NSLs, except where they provide electronic communications services.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (U.S. [[United States Senate|S.]] 2271, Public Law 109-178), Sec. 5.</ref> The reauthorization Act also ordered the Attorney General submit a report semi-annually to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the [[House Committee on Financial Services]] and the [[Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs]] on all NSL request made under the ''Fair Credit Reporting Act''.<ref>USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. [[United States House of Representatives|H.R.]] 3199, Public Law 109-177), Title I, Sec. 118</ref>