AMNESTY INTERN. USA v. McCONNELL
646 F.Supp.2d 633 (2009)
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA, et al., Plaintiffs,
John McCONNELL, et al., Defendants.
No. 08 Civ. 6259(JGK).
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
August 20, 2009.
Arthur Nelson Eisenberg, Christopher T. Dunn, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY, Jameel Jaffer, Lori Danielle Tully, Melissa Goodman, Laurence Michael Schwartztol, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Serrin Andrew Turner, Laura Klein Abel, New York, NY, for Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge.
This is a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"), 50 U.S.C. § 1881a, which was added to FISA by Section 101(a)(2) of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (the "FAA"). In relevant part, the FAA amended FISA by creating a new framework within which federal officials may seek approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the "FISC") to authorize surveillance targeting non-United States persons located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.
The plaintiffs are attorneys and organizations in the United States whose work necessitates international communications with people and organizations they believe to be likely targets of surveillance under the FAA. The defendants are the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of
the Central Security Service, and the Attorney General of the United States.1
The plaintiffs fear that their international communications will be monitored under the FAA. They make no claim that their communications have yet been monitored, and they make no allegation or showing that the surveillance of their communications has been authorized or that the Government has sought approval for such surveillance. However, the plaintiffs assert that they have an "actual and well-founded fear" of surveillance under the FAA and claim already to have incurred significant costs in taking steps to protect their international communications from surveillance. The plaintiffs challenge the FAA as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, and Article III of the Constitution.
The Government contends as a threshold matter that the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the FAA. The Government also contends that the lawsuit lacks merit in any event because the FAA is constitutional on its face.
The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, the plaintiffs have failed to show that they have standing to bring their facial challenge to the statute.