Doe v. Gonzales
Headline: Court denies urgent request to lift stay, leaving in place an appeals-court pause on a preliminary injunction against the FBI’s Patriot Act gag rule and keeping a library from confirming an NSL while appeals proceed.
Holding:
- Keeps a library barred from confirming it received an NSL while the appeal continues.
- Maintains the appeals court’s stay of a district court injunction against the FBI’s nondisclosure rule.
- Allows expedited appellate review before any permanent change to the gag provision.
Summary
Background
A library (identified in court papers as “John Doe”), together with two civil liberties groups, sued the federal government over a provision of the Patriot Act that lets the FBI demand customer records and bars recipients from saying the FBI asked for those records. The FBI issued a National Security Letter (NSL) seeking subscriber and billing information tied to an Internet address and warned the recipient not to disclose that the FBI had sought the records. The library challenged that gag rule under the First Amendment and won a preliminary injunction from a federal district court.
Reasoning
The district court found the nondisclosure rule was a content-based prior restraint and that the government had not shown a compelling, narrowly tailored reason to bar the library from identifying itself. The government got an expedited appeal, and a panel of the Court of Appeals stayed the district court’s injunction while the appeal proceeds. After the library’s identity was inadvertently made public on court filings and in the press, the library asked the appeals court and then the Supreme Court to lift the stay so it could confirm it had received an NSL. Justice Ginsburg, acting as Circuit Justice, denied that emergency request, citing respect for the appeals court’s assessment and the fact that the appeals court is proceeding quickly on the merits.
Real world impact
The decision keeps in place the appeals court’s pause on the district court order, so the library remains largely barred from publicly confirming its NSL receipt while the case is decided. The Justice also allowed filings under seal to proceed.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?