467 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2006), 06-2095, American Civil Liberties Union v. National Sec. Agency/Central Sec. Service

Docket Nº:AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan; Council on American Islamic Relations; Council on American-Islamic Relations of Michigan; Greenpeace, Incorporated; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; James Bamford; Larry Diamond; Christopher Hitchens; Tara McKelvey
Citation:467 F.3d 590
Case Date:October 04, 2006
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 590

467 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2006)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan; Council on American Islamic Relations; Council on American-Islamic Relations of Michigan; Greenpeace, Incorporated; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; James Bamford; Larry Diamond; Christopher Hitchens; Tara McKelvey; Barnett R. Rubin, Plaintiffs--Appellees (No. 06-2095) Cross--Appellants (No. 06-2140)

v.

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE; Keith B. Alexander, General, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service, Defendants--Appellants (No. 06-2095) Cross--Appellees (No. 06-2140).

Nos. 06-2095, 06-2140.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 04, 2006

Ann Beeson, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Before: BATCHELDER, GILMAN, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The government moves for a stay pending appeal of the district court's order holding the Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the Government from utilizing the Program in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and internet communications, in contravention of [FISA and Title III].

In considering whether a stay pending appeal should issue, we balance the traditional factors governing injunctive relief: (1) whether the applicant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other interested parties; and (4) where the public interest lies. Baker v. Adams County/Ohio Valley Sch. Bd., 310 F.3d 927, 928 (6th Cir.2002); Michigan Coal. of Radioactive...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP