## Facts

- The United States and the United Kingdom were parties to a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) providing cooperation in gathering evidence for criminal matters, including evidence held by private persons.
- The MLAT expressly stated it created no private right of action and barred private individuals from interfering with execution of MLAT requests.
- United Kingdom authorities investigated the 1972 abduction and killing of Jean McConville, allegedly connected to the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and sought evidence located in the United States.
- Boston College (BC) operated an oral-history initiative known as the “Belfast Project,” which recorded confidential interviews about the Northern Ireland conflict.
- BC possessed recordings and related materials from an interview of Dolours Price, a former IRA member, conducted as part of the project by researcher Ed Moloney.
- At the United Kingdom’s request, and acting under the MLAT and 18 U.S.C. § 3512, the United States sought judicial assistance, including appointment of a commissioner to obtain evidence.
- The commissioner issued subpoenas to BC seeking the Belfast Project recordings and related material believed to bear on the McConville investigation.
- BC moved in federal district court to quash or modify the subpoenas.
- Moloney (and, in the consolidated appeals, fellow project researcher Anthony McIntyre) sought to intervene in the subpoena proceedings and also filed a related action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the MLAT did not authorize efforts to obtain evidence held by private parties and that compliance would violate confidentiality commitments and related interests.
- The district court denied intervention and denied the requested declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Moloney and McIntyre appealed; the First Circuit considered the matters in consolidated appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the US–UK MLAT or 18 U.S.C. § 3512 provides a private right of action allowing project researchers to challenge or block subpoenas issued to a third party in response to an MLAT request.
2. Whether the researchers were entitled to intervene as of right or by permission in the MLAT subpoena-enforcement proceeding directed at Boston College.
3. Whether the researchers could obtain declaratory or injunctive relief limiting the government’s compliance with the MLAT request (including a limitation to evidence already in the government’s possession).

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders denying intervention and denying declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The court held the MLAT created no enforceable private rights and, by its terms, did not allow private individuals to impede execution of MLAT requests.
- The court rejected the argument that the MLAT’s scope excluded evidence held by private parties and declined to use private litigation as a vehicle to police treaty compliance in this setting.
- The court held Moloney and McIntyre were not entitled to intervene in the subpoena proceeding against BC and could not obtain relief that would block or limit the subpoenas based on the treaty or § 3512.

## Legal Principles

- A mutual legal assistance treaty is generally an agreement between sovereigns; absent clear language creating enforceable individual rights, it does not supply a private cause of action.
- When an MLAT expressly disclaims private rights and bars private interference, private parties cannot rely on the treaty to stop or restrict execution of MLAT evidence-gathering requests.
- 18 U.S.C. § 3512 provides a mechanism for U.S. courts to assist with foreign evidence requests; it does not itself confer a private right to sue to limit the executive branch’s response to an MLAT request.
- Intervention in subpoena-enforcement proceedings is not available merely because a non-recipient has an interest in confidentiality; the subpoena recipient is ordinarily the party positioned to litigate objections to production.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that researchers involved in Boston College’s Belfast Project could not use the US–UK MLAT or § 3512 to block subpoenas issued to BC for an interview of Dolours Price sought for a UK murder investigation, affirmed denial of their attempt to intervene, and affirmed denial of their separate requests for declaratory and injunctive relief because the treaty created no private right and barred private interference with MLAT execution.


United States v. Moloney, In re Dolours Price, 685 F.3d 1 (2012)