A federal judge has found that the U.S. government’s method of searching through data collected on American citizens violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
This ruling emerged from a case involving a U.S.-based individual who admitted to trying to aid a terrorist group.
Judge LaShann Dearcy Hall emphasized that such practices could turn Section 702 into a tool for bypassing the Fourth Amendment, as described in her decision made public on January 21.
The defendant, Agron Hasbajrami, a legal permanent resident, was arrested in 2011. He faced charges of providing support to a terrorist organization. The evidence in his case was obtained through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows authorities to conduct surveillance without a warrant.
After Hasbajrami’s guilty plea, it was revealed that some of the evidence stemmed from information gathered under Section 702, a FISA supplement that permits surveillance on non-U.S. persons believed to be outside the U.S.
Authorities collected some of Hasbajrami’s communications while targeting non-Americans outside the U.S. They also mistakenly thought he was a non-U.S. person at one point, leading to additional data gathering. Hasbajrami sought to suppress this evidence, but after his motion was denied, he pleaded guilty, retaining the right to appeal.
In 2019, a federal appeals court mostly upheld the denial of his motion. It determined that the incidental collection of Hasbajrami’s information was lawful since the surveillance itself was legal. However, the court tasked the district court with examining whether the government’s searches of the Section 702 database breached constitutional rights.
Judge Hall’s recent decision concluded that these searches did indeed violate the Constitution. While the initial collection was lawful, this did not automatically authorize subsequent database queries.
Hall highlighted that permitting law enforcement to gather a vast repository of communications, including those of U.S. persons, for unrestricted searches, defeats the purpose of requiring a warrant.
Despite this, the judge rejected the part of Hasbajrami’s motion requesting the government to surrender the collected evidence. Representatives from the Department of Justice and Hasbajrami’s legal team chose not to comment on the ruling.
The decision was praised by several government watchdogs. Patrick Toomey from the American Civil Liberties Union called it a significant constitutional ruling on one of FISA’s most misused provisions.
Andrew Crocker and Matthew Guariglia from the Electronic Frontier Foundation urged Congress to safeguard civil rights by refusing to renew Section 702 without key reforms, such as mandatory warrants for querying U.S. persons’ data and enhanced transparency.
John Ratcliffe, nominated by President Donald Trump as CIA director, expressed his support for Section 702 during his confirmation hearing, calling it an essential national security tool.
He opposed the idea of requiring warrants for database queries. Similarly, Tulsi Gabbard, another appointee by Trump, voiced her support for Section 702.
This section of FISA has been reauthorized multiple times by Congress, most recently in 2024, and is slated to expire on April 15, 2026.
