Wilner v. NSA
| Wilner v. NSA | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
| Full case name | Thomas Wilner, et al. v. National Security Agency and Department of Justice |
| Argued | October 9, 2009 |
| Decided | December 30, 2009 |
| Citation | 592 F.3d 60 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | 1:07-cv-03883, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 48750, 2008 WL 2567765 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2008) |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | José A. Cabranes, Debra Ann Livingston, Edward R. Korman |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Cabranes, joined by unanimous |
Wilner v. NSA, 592 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2009), was a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Thomas Wilner and fifteen other lawyers who represented Guantanamo captives against the United States National Security Agency.[1][2][3]
The lawyers argued that the NSA, through its warrantless wiretap program, had violated their attorney-client privilege.[1][2][3] They referred to the January 18, 2006 lawsuit CCR v. Bush, and called the NSA's response "inadequate". They assert that while the Government had released 85 pages of documents they had withheld another 85 that the law obliged them to release.
The other lawyers participating in the suit are:
References
[edit]- ^ a b Mike Rosen-Molina (May 19, 2007). "Ex-Guantanamo lawyers sue for recordings of client meetings". The Jurist. Archived from the original on May 2, 2008. Retrieved 2007-05-22.
- ^ a b "Wilner v. NSA". The Jurist. Archived from the original on May 23, 2007. Retrieved May 22, 2007.
- ^ a b "Wilner v. NSA" (PDF). Center for Constitutional Rights. June 19, 2009. Retrieved June 19, 2009.
External links
[edit]- Text of Wilner v. NSA, 592 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2009) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Leagle
Categories:
- 2009 in United States case law
- Guantanamo Bay captives legal and administrative procedures
- National Security Agency
- Telephone tapping
- United States attorney–client privilege case law
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cases
- United States District Court for the Southern District of New York cases