@Keychat why is your website not available over the TOR browser?

The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

United States v. Moalin (2013)Issue: Four Somali immigrants, including Basaaly Moalin, were convicted of terrorism-related charges after the government used evidence obtained through the NSA’s mass surveillance program under the PATRIOT Act. Moalin appealed, arguing that the surveillance violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Outcome: In 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA's bulk collection of phone records was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, citing the lack of judicial oversight and the violation of privacy rights. However, the court upheld the conviction, finding the collected data had minimal impact on the case. Impact: The case marked a significant judicial acknowledgment that the NSA's mass surveillance program was unconstitutional.

Mayfield v. United States (2007)Issue: Brandon Mayfield, an American attorney wrongfully detained by the FBI due to a fingerprinting error linked to the 2004 Madrid train bombings, sued the government, claiming that the surveillance and searches conducted under the PATRIOT Act violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Outcome: The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled that certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act were unconstitutional, particularly regarding the government’s use of surveillance and searches without a warrant. The government later settled with Mayfield and issued a formal apology. Impact: While the case did not lead to broader changes in the PATRIOT Act, it highlighted potential constitutional violations under the Fourth Amendment.

Jewel v. NSA (2008)Issue: The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) brought this case on behalf of Carolyn Jewel and other AT&T customers, challenging the NSA’s mass surveillance programs, which were justified under the PATRIOT Act and other laws. The plaintiffs argued that the bulk collection of internet and telephone data violated their Fourth Amendment rights. Outcome: The case has been ongoing for years, with some setbacks for the plaintiffs due to state secrets privileges invoked by the government. However, the case has raised significant constitutional questions about the breadth of government surveillance. Impact: While the case has not yet resulted in a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of the PATRIOT Act, it remains a key legal challenge in the debate over surveillance and privacy.

United States v. Warshak (2010)Issue: This case involved the government’s warrantless collection of emails from Steven Warshak under the Stored Communications Act, which was expanded by the PATRIOT Act. Warshak argued that the collection violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Outcome: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government violated the Fourth Amendment by obtaining Warshak's emails without a warrant, establishing that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their emails. Impact: Although not directly a challenge to the PATRIOT Act itself, the case set a precedent regarding electronic communications and the need for a warrant, casting doubt on the constitutionality of certain surveillance practices under the PATRIOT Act.

Klayman v. Obama (2013)Issue: Attorney Larry Klayman filed a lawsuit challenging the NSA’s bulk data collection program under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, arguing that it violated the Fourth Amendment. Outcome: U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that the NSA’s metadata collection program was likely unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. He issued a preliminary injunction but stayed it pending appeal. In his opinion, Judge Leon called the program "almost Orwellian." Impact: The case contributed to the growing legal and public opposition to mass surveillance but did not result in an immediate halt to the program.

ACLU v. Clapper (2015)Issue: The mass surveillance program under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect telephone metadata on millions of Americans, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Outcome: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the bulk collection of phone records exceeded the authority granted under the PATRIOT Act. The court did not rule on the Fourth Amendment violation but did state that the mass collection was not authorized by the statute itself. Impact: Although the court did not directly address the Fourth Amendment, it found that the program was illegal, leading to the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act, which curtailed the bulk data collection practices.

Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How do I get one of those cashu.me nip-05s? @calle