DETROIT — Nearly three years after hearing arguments in the case, a federal judge has ruled that an American Civil Liberties Union challenge to the constitutionality of the USA Patriot Act may proceed.
The ACLU's clients, including Muslim charities, social services organizations and advocacy groups, have shown they have been harmed by the anti-terrorism law adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, U.S. District Judge Denise Page Hood said in a 15-page ruling issued Sept. 29.
Hood's ruling in Muslim Community Association v. Ashcroft had been awaited since a Dec. 3, 2003, hearing at which the government argued the lawsuit should be dismissed.
The government later argued that amendments approved by Congress in March 2006 had corrected any constitutional flaws in the Patriot Act. Hood's ruling gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their initial complaint in light of those amendments.
The lawsuit was filed in July 2003 on behalf of the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor and five other nonprofit groups. It was the first legal challenge to the part of the Patriot Act that let agents obtain such things as individuals' library-book lists and medical information.
The ACLU contends Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the FBI access to any "tangible things" such as books and documents through an order from a secret court, does not require investigators to show probable cause.
A permanent gag order on all Section 215 orders means that people whose records are obtained from a third party would never find out about it, the ACLU says.
The FBI must request a Section 215 order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a secret body set up in 1978 to govern the surveillance of foreign powers and alleged foreign agents.
The government asked that the case be dismissed, arguing the law does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the protections against unreasonable search and seizure do not apply to information or items that have been given to third parties, even if there is an understanding of confidentiality.
Justice Department lawyer Brian Boyle said anyone served with a Section 215 order would have the right to object before the foreign intelligence court before complying.
The ACLU said its clients had been hurt by the Patriot Act because fear of the law had kept many people from attending religious services and making charitable donations.
Kary Moss, Michigan director of the ACLU, told the Detroit Free Press she was satisfied with Hood's decision and would consult with her clients before deciding whether to proceed with the lawsuit.
Messages seeking comment were left after business hours yesterday with representatives of the Justice Department in Washington and the U.S. attorney's office in Detroit.
Hood acknowledged in her ruling that it took "an extraordinary amount of time" to issue it, adding, "The court is aware that the issues raised on the complaint and in the government's papers are important to us all."