## Facts

- Several U.S. citizen plaintiffs, including Larry E. Klayman, alleged the federal government collected their domestic telephony metadata through the NSA “Bulk Telephony Metadata Program.”
- The program operated under § 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (50 U.S.C. § 1861) and involved obtaining, in bulk and on a recurring basis, call-detail metadata (numbers dialed, time, and duration) from participating carriers.
- Plaintiffs claimed the program enabled long-term aggregation and querying of call records, revealing sensitive information about personal associations and activities.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to stop further collection of their records, bar querying of metadata that included their records, and require destruction of previously collected records.
- The government argued plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show their own records were collected and contended that existing precedent on information conveyed to third parties defeated the Fourth Amendment claim.
- The district court granted partial preliminary relief as to two plaintiffs, enjoined collection of their call records, and ordered destruction of those records, but stayed the order pending appeal due to national security interests and the novelty of the issues.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief challenging bulk telephony metadata collection under § 215.
2. Whether bulk, long-term collection and querying of domestic telephony metadata likely constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
3. If a search, whether the bulk metadata program was likely “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.
4. Whether preliminary injunctive relief was warranted under the traditional equitable factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest).

## Decision

- The district court held plaintiffs had standing at the preliminary stage, given the asserted scope of collection covering essentially all domestic calls.
- The district court concluded plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourth Amendment claim.
- The court distinguished *Smith v. Maryland* on the ground that bulk, long-term aggregation and analysis of metadata differs materially from a short-term pen register targeting a single suspect.
- The court found the record did not show concrete, time-sensitive counterterrorism benefits sufficient to justify the breadth of collection as reasonable.
- The court issued a preliminary injunction limited to two plaintiffs and ordered destruction of their collected metadata, but stayed the injunction pending appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing in surveillance challenges requires a plaintiff to show a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; broad program scope may support standing at an early stage, but proof demands may increase for preliminary injunctive relief.
- Fourth Amendment analysis may treat aggregated, long-term digital metadata collection as materially different from earlier, targeted pen-register surveillance, affecting whether individuals retain a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Even where national security is invoked, the government must show sufficient justification to render a broad search reasonable when weighed against privacy intrusions.
- A preliminary injunction requires a strong showing of likelihood of success and irreparable harm; the public interest and balance of equities are evaluated alongside national security considerations.

## Conclusion

The district court preliminarily barred the government from collecting and retaining two plaintiffs’ telephony metadata under § 215, finding a substantial likelihood the bulk program violated the Fourth Amendment and that equitable factors favored relief, while staying the injunction pending appellate review.


Klayman v. Obama, 957 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013)