American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service, 06-2095.
| Decision Date | 04 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-2095.,No. 06-2140.,06-2095.,06-2140. |
| Parties | 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). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Ann Beeson, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Before: BATCHELDER, GILMAN, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
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 Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir.1991). This court, in Grutter v. Bollinger, 247 F.3d 631, 633 (6th Cir. 2001), noted that
Michigan Coalition said that the success on the merits which must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the harm. More than a possibility of success must be shown, and "even if a movant demonstrates irreparable harm that decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the nonmoving party if a stay is granted, he is still required to show, at a minimum, `serious questions going to the merits.'" (edits and citations omitted).
After careful review, we conclude that this standard has been met in this case. Accordingly, the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.E.O.C. v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Dept.
... ... Association and Professional Staff Union, 53 F.3d 135 (6th Cir.1995), the EEOC had failed ... seventeen years and seven months worth of service, Lickteig applied for disability-retirement ... was debating and drafting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but declined to do so because ... U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR, THE OLDER AMERICAN WORKER: AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT 5-6 ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...v. Ashcroft, 350 F.Supp.2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004), 1321 ACLU v. National Security Agency, 438 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Mich. 2006), order stayed, 467 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2006), ACLU of Georgia v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983), 1589 ACLU v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 11......