Case: Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

10-01157 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Filed Date: July 2, 2010

Closed Date: July 15, 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case was filed directly in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Along with this case, there is a related mandamus matter with a different docket number.The Plaintiff is an independent nonprofit research center in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to protect the public's privacy and human rights. On July 2, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Appellate Court. This case was about three agency actions of the Transportation Security Admini…

This case was filed directly in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Along with this case, there is a related mandamus matter with a different docket number.

The Plaintiff is an independent nonprofit research center in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to protect the public's privacy and human rights. On July 2, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Appellate Court. This case was about three agency actions of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). EPIC petitioned the Court for review of these three actions:

(1) failure to act on EPIC'S May 31, 2009, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) petition (the First EPIC Petition): The First EPIC Petition noted the TSA's announcement of a plan to deploy full body scanners (also called "advanced imaging technology" or AIT in the court documents) as the primary means of screening airline passengers in the United States and urged the DHS to undertake a 90-day formal public rulemaking process to receive public input on the agency's use of full body scanners. The DHS wrote a letter to EPIC on June 19, 2009, but failed to grant or deny EPIC's petition for the formal rulemaking concerning TSA's use of full body scanners (the DHS Letter).

(2) the May 28, 2010 Order of the TSA refusing to process of EPIC's April 21, 2010 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) petition ("the Second EPIC Petition"): The Second EPIC Petition sought repeal of the TSA's rule mandating the use of body scanners at airport checkpoints as primary screening. On May 28, 2010, the TSA issued an order refusing to process the Second EPIC Petition, asserting "TSA does not interpret your letter to seek a rulemaking or to constitute a petition under 5 U.S.C. $553." (the TSA Order).

(3) the TSA Rule mandating the use of "full body scanners" at airport checkpoints as primary screening. The TSA entered this Rule recently, but failed to make public the text of the Rule or its date. The TSA recently issued this Rule on a date unknown to Petitioners. This Rule is a final administrative action, and constitutes a final agency rule.

On July 15, 2011, the judges granted in part and denied in part the petition, and ordered, without vacating the rule, that the rule be remanded to TSA to promptly conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings (notifying the public of the proposed new or changed rule and to accept public comments). In summary, the Court ruled for EPIC on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim. One of the factors that the court considered was the need for the TSA to continue its airport security operations without interruption. The court instructed the agency promptly to proceed in a manner consistent with its opinion.

According to the court, the TSA's denial of the petition on the ground that it “is not required to initiate the APA rulemaking procedures each time the agency develops and implements improved passenger screening procedures” rested upon an interpretation of the APA. Therefore, the court focused on the analysis of the APA and certain exceptions to the rulemaking standard procedure in the APA. Specifically, the court analyzed whether the several exceptions that the TSA claimed fit within the APA's exceptions.

In its decision, the court explained that the APA's exceptions urged by the TSA did not apply in this case to justify the TSA's failure to give notice of and receive comment upon such a rule. The court determined that the rule is legislative and not merely interpretive, procedural, or a general statement of policy. In summary, the court determined that the TSA has not justified its failure to initiate notice-and-comment rulemaking before announcing it would use AIT scanners for primary screening.

As for the petitioners' claims, the court denied the petition with respect to the statutory arguments and claim under the Fourth Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

EPIC in August 2011 petitioned for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. On September 12, 2011, the court denied both petitions. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

MJ Koo (2/16/2017)

Lisa Koo (3/23/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4155117/parties/electronic-privacy-information-v-dhs/

Judge(s)

Ginsburg, Douglas Howard (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Brinkmann, Beth S (District of Columbia)

Koppel, John S. (District of Columbia)

Letter, Douglas (District of Columbia)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Rotenberg, Marc (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Ginsburg, Douglas Howard (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Brinkmann, Beth S (District of Columbia)

Koppel, John S. (District of Columbia)

Letter, Douglas (District of Columbia)

Singer, Michael Jay (District of Columbia)

Other

Rotenberg, Marc (District of Columbia)

Verdi, John Arthur (District of Columbia)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

10-01157	Docket [PACER] Electronic Privacy Information v. Department of Homeland Security	May 3, 2012	May 3, 2012 Docket
BL-2 10-01157	Petition for Review Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security	July 2, 2010	July 2, 2010 Complaint
1318805 10-01157	On Petition for Review of an Order of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Electronic Privacy Information v. DHS	July 15, 2011	July 15, 2011 Order/Opinion 653 F.3d 1

show / hide documents

Resources

Resources related to this case
Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
EPIC v. DHS	This resource includes litigation documents that were filed in this lawsuit.	April 8, 2019	April 8, 2019 https://epic.org/...
EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) Epic.org	EPIC has challenged the use of airport body scanners since they were first tested and introduced by the TSA in the mid 2000s. First, EPIC sued to obtain records outlining the invasive screening capab…	May 26, 2017	May 26, 2017 https://epic.org/...
EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program) Epic.org	EPIC has challenged the use of airport body scanners since they were first tested and introduced by the TSA in the mid 2000s. First, EPIC sued to obtain records outlining the invasive screening capab…	May 26, 2017	May 26, 2017 https://epic.org/...

show / hide resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4155117/electronic-privacy-information-v-dhs/

Last updated April 3, 2026, 5:07 a.m.

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1207009276	July 2, 2010	PETITION FOR REVIEW filed [1253217] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier of a decision by federal agency [Service Date: 07/02/2010 ] Disclosure Statement: Attached; Certificate of Parties: Not Applicable to this Filing [10-1157]	RECAP
1207009285	July 2, 2010	MOTION filed [1253222] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to stay underlying order in case (Response to Motion served by mail due on 07/15/2010) [Service Date: 07/02/2010 by US mail] Pages: 16-20. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207030015	July 7, 2010	ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed [1253798] by John S. Koppel and co-counsel Douglas Letter on behalf of Respondents Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207065103	July 15, 2010	MODIFIED DOCKET TEXT--RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1255494] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to motion to stay case [1253222-2] [Service Date: 07/15/2010 by clerk] Pages: 11-15. [10-1157]--[Edited 07/16/2010 by TAG] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207079979	July 20, 2010	REPLY FILED [1256231] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to response [1255494-2] [Service Date: 07/20/2010 by email] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)	RECAP
1207193806	Sept. 1, 2010	PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1263807] denying motion to stay case construed as a motion for injuctive relief. The Clerk is directed to enter a briefing schedule and to schedule oral argument on the first appropriate date following the completion of briefing [1253222-2] Before Judges: Ginsburg, Brown and Griffith. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207193900	Sept. 2, 2010	CLERK'S ORDER filed [1263858] ORDERED that respondents submit the certified index to the record by 9/22/10, setting briefing schedule: PETITIONER Brief due 11/01/2010. Appendix due 11/01/2010. RESPONDENT Brief due on 12/01/2010. PETITIONER Reply Brief due 12/15/2010 [10-1157]	RECAP
1207199671	Sept. 20, 2010	MOTION filed [1266930] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to extend time to file certified index to 10/04/2010. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 10/04/2010) [Service Date: 09/20/2010 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207200907	Sept. 23, 2010	CLERK'S ORDER filed [1267653] granting respondents' motion for extension of time to file certified index; Certified index now due by 10/04/2010. [1266930-2] [10-1157]	RECAP
1207204704	Oct. 4, 2010	CERTIFIED INDEX TO RECORD [1269737] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS [Service Date: 10/04/2010 ] [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207213419	Oct. 29, 2010	AMENDED CERTIFIED INDEX TO RECORD [1274589] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS [Service Date: 10/29/2010 ] [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207213788	Nov. 1, 2010	PETITIONER BRIEF [1274825] filed by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier [Service Date: 11/01/2010 ] Length of Brief: 10,956 Words. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc) 1 Appellant/Petitioner Brief Filed View on PACER 2 Al-Khalili Declaration View on PACER 1 Appellant/Petitioner Brief Filed View on PACER 2 Al-Khalili Declaration View on PACER	RECAP
1207215594	Nov. 5, 2010	MOTION filed [1275922] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to strike the brief (Response to Motion served by mail due on 11/18/2010) [Service Date: 11/05/2010 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207216687	Nov. 9, 2010	RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1276521] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to motion to strike document [1275922-2] [Service Date: 11/09/2010 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)	RECAP
1207217654	Nov. 12, 2010	REPLY FILED [1277126] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to response [1276521-2] [Service Date: 11/12/2010 by CM/ECF NDA, US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207220706	Nov. 22, 2010	CLERK'S ORDER filed [1278927], on the court's own motion, suspending the remainder of the briefing schedule pending further order of the court. [10-1157]--[Edited 11/22/2010 by CWC]	RECAP
1207222949	Nov. 30, 2010	PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1280220] referring motion to strike petitioner's brief [1275922-2] to the merits panel to which this case is assigned. The clerk is directed to enter a new briefing schedule that will make respondents' brief due ten days from the date of this order. Before Judges: Henderson, Garland and Brown. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207223543	Dec. 1, 2010	MOTION filed [1280577] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to extend time to file brief to 12/23/2010. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 12/16/2010) [Service Date: 12/01/2010 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207225175	Dec. 7, 2010	RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1281570] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to motion to extend time [1280577-2] [Service Date: 12/07/2010 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207225349	Dec. 7, 2010	REPLY FILED [1281700] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to response [1281570-2] [Service Date: 12/07/2010 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Letter, Douglas)	RECAP
1207226140	Dec. 9, 2010	PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1282208] granting motion to extend time [1280577-2], setting briefing schedule: RESPONDENT Brief due on 12/23/2010. PETITIONER Reply Brief due 01/06/2011. Appendix due 01/13/2011. PETITIONER Final Brief due 01/27/2011. RESPONDENT Final Brief due on 01/27/2011. PETITIONER Final Reply Brief due 01/27/2011 Before Judges: Ginsburg, Tatel and Brown. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207229232	Dec. 21, 2010	CLERK'S ORDER filed [1284098] scheduling oral argument before Judges GINSBURG, HENDERSON, TATEL 03/10/2011 AM [10-1157]	RECAP
1207230381	Dec. 23, 2010	RESPONDENT BRIEF [1284763] filed by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS [Service Date: 12/23/2010 ] Length of Brief: 13,913 words. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207233741	Jan. 6, 2011	MODIFIED EVENT--PETITIONER REPLY BRIEF [1286650] filed by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier [Service Date: 01/06/2011 ] Length of Brief: 6,996 words. [10-1157]--[Edited 01/07/2011 by JMC] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207237681	Jan. 19, 2011	NOTICE FILED [1288782] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier . [Service Date: 01/19/2011 ] [10-1157] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207237684	Jan. 19, 2011	MOTION filed [1288784] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier for leave to file appendix (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/03/2011) [Service Date: 01/19/2011 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207238256	Jan. 20, 2011	CLERK'S ORDER filed [1289101] granting petitioners' motion for leave to file the appendix out of time [1288784-2]; The Clerk is directed to file the lodged appendix (Vols. 1-7) [1288835-2] [10-1157]	RECAP
1207240309	Jan. 27, 2011	INCORRECT DOCKET ENTRY-DISREGARD--RESPONDENT FINAL BRIEF [1290285] filed by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS [Service Date: 01/27/2011 ] Length of Brief: 13,877 words. [10-1157]--[Edited 03/02/2011 by JMC] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207240362	Jan. 27, 2011	PETITIONER FINAL BRIEF [1290310] filed by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier [Service Date: 01/27/2011 ] Length of Brief: 10,400. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207240365	Jan. 27, 2011	PETITIONER FINAL REPLY BRIEF [1290311] filed by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier [Service Date: 01/27/2011 ] Length of Brief: 6,996 Words. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207240550	Jan. 28, 2011	MOTION filed [1290427] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to supplement the appendix (Response to Motion served by mail due on 02/10/2011) [Service Date: 01/28/2011 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207244367	Feb. 10, 2011	RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1292659] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to motion to supplement [1290427-2] [Service Date: 02/10/2011 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207245662	Feb. 15, 2011	REPLY FILED [1293387] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to response [Service Date: 02/15/2011 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207247309	Feb. 22, 2011	PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1294351] that the motion for leave to file the sealed ex parte supplemental appendix be granted in part. Respondents' request to file the sealed supplement ex parte is granted with respect to the items in the joint appendix that contain sensitive security information as designated by the STA pursuant to 49 USC 114Ir)(1)(C) and 49 CFR pt. 1520. Respondents are directed to file ex parte, within 3 days, a sealed supplement limited to those terms. It is FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's request to file the sealed supplement ex parte is denied with respect to three copyrighted documents that were omitted in their entirety from the joint appendix: JA 1, 2, and 87. Respondent's are directed to file and serve under seal, within 3 days, a supplement to the joint appendix containing those items. It is FURTHER ORDERED that respondents file and serve, within 7 days, a corrected brief with appropriate page references to the two sealed supplements. The Clerk is directed to return the lodged supplemental appendix. Before Judges: Ginsburg, Henderson and Tatel. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207248417	Feb. 25, 2011	PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1295025] allocating oral argument time as follows: Petitioners -- 15 Minutes, Respondents -- 15 Minutes. One counsel per side to argue; directing party to file Form 72 notice of arguing attorney - due 03/03/2011 [10-1157]	RECAP
1207248612	Feb. 25, 2011	LETTER FILED [1295136] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS . [Service Date: 02/25/2011 ] [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207249520	March 1, 2011	CORRECTED RESPONDENT FINAL BRIEF [1295625] filed by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS [Service Date: 03/01/2011 ] Length of Brief: 13,885 words. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207250473	March 3, 2011	LETTER FILED [1296174] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS concerning possible closure of courtroom. [Service Date: 03/03/2011 ] [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207251715	March 8, 2011	LETTER FILED [1296942] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier concerning oral argument format [Service Date: 03/08/2011 ] [10-1157] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207252398	March 10, 2011	ORAL ARGUMENT HELD before Judges Ginsburg, Henderson and Tatel. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207253185	March 14, 2011	LETTER FILED [1297848] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS regarding oral argument matter [Letter clarifying response at oral argument] [Service Date: 03/14/2011 ] [10-1157] (Letter, Douglas)	RECAP
1207289456	July 15, 2011	PER CURIAM JUDGMENT filed [1318804] that the petition for review be granted in part, be denied in part, and the rule be remanded to TSA for prompt proceedings for the reasons in the accompanying opinion . Before Judges: Ginsburg, Henderson and Tatel. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207289459	July 15, 2011	OPINION filed [1318805] (Pages: 18) for the Court by Judge Ginsburg [10-1157]	RECAP
1207289465	July 15, 2011	CLERK'S ORDER filed [1318807] withholding issuance of the mandate. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207289512	July 15, 2011	CLERK'S ORDER filed [1318830] that the motion to strike document be dismissed as moot in light of the court's opinion issued on July 15, 2011. [1275922-2] [10-1157]	RECAP
1207301804	Aug. 29, 2011	PETITION filed [1326484] by Petitioners Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier for rehearing, for rehearing en banc. [Service Date: 08/29/2011 by CM/ECF NDA, US Mail] Pages: 11-15. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)	RECAP
1207306158	Sept. 12, 2011	PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1328890] denying petition for rehearing [1326484-2] Before Judges: Ginsburg, Henderson and Tatel. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207306161	Sept. 12, 2011	PER CURIAM ORDER, En Banc, filed [1328891] denying petition for rehearing en banc [1326484-3] Before Judges: Sentelle, Ginsburg, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith and Kavanaugh. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207322243	Oct. 28, 2011	MOTION filed [1338525] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to enforce mandate (Response to Motion served by mail due on 11/10/2011) [Service Date: 10/28/2011 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 16-20. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)	RECAP
1207326735	Nov. 10, 2011	RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1341159] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to motion to enforce mandate [1338525-2] [Service Date: 11/10/2011 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 11-15. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207328817	Nov. 16, 2011	PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1342367] denying motion to enforce mandate [1338525-2] Before Judges: Henderson, Tatel and Ginsburg. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207341733	Dec. 23, 2011	MOTION filed [1349517] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to enforce mandate (Response to Motion served by mail due on 01/06/2012) [Service Date: 12/23/2011 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 16-20. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)	RECAP
1207342159	Dec. 27, 2011	MOTION filed [1349760] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to extend time to file response to 01/13/2012. [Service Date: 12/27/2011 ] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Letter, Douglas)	RECAP
1207342793	Dec. 29, 2011	CLERK'S ORDER filed [1350107] Upon consideration of respondentsâ unopposed motion for extension of time to file a response to petitionersâ second motion to enforce the mandate, it is ORDERED that the motion be granted. The response is now due on or before January 13, 2012. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207346205	Jan. 11, 2012	MOTION filed [1352181] by Electronic Privacy Information Center for attorneys fee (Response to Motion served by mail due on 01/26/2012) [Service Date: 01/11/2012 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 16-20. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207347216	Jan. 13, 2012	RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1352715] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to motion to enforce mandate [1349517-2] [Service Date: 01/13/2012 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207347768	Jan. 17, 2012	REPLY FILED [1353010] by Electronic Privacy Information Center to response [1352715-2] [Service Date: 01/17/2012 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207351380	Jan. 26, 2012	RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1355018] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to motion for attorney fees [1352181-2] [Service Date: 01/26/2012 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 16-20. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207353395	Feb. 2, 2012	PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1356176] denying motion to enforce mandate [1349517-2] Before Judges: Henderson, Tatel and Ginsburg. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207353510	Feb. 2, 2012	REPLY FILED [1356251] by Electronic Privacy Information Center to response [1355018-2] [Service Date: 02/02/2012 by CM/ECF NDA, US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207357678	Feb. 15, 2012	PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1358453] denying motion for attorney fees [1352181-2] Before Judges: Henderson, Tatel and Ginsburg. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207367720	March 16, 2012	MODIFIED EVENT-- MOTION filed [1364130] by Electronic Privacy Information Center for panel and en banc reconsideration of order denying attorneys' fees [1358453-2] (Response to Motion served by mail due on 03/29/2012) [Service Date: 03/16/2012 by US Mail, CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157]--[Edited 03/20/2012 by JMC] (Rotenberg, Marc)	RECAP
1207369857	March 23, 2012	ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed [1365322] by Beth S. Brinkmann (appearance already entered) and co-counsel Michael Jay Singer on behalf of Respondents Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207370073	March 23, 2012	MOTION filed [1365427] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to extend time to file response to 04/12/2012 at 11:59 pm. [Service Date: 03/23/2012 ] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207371379	March 28, 2012	NOTICE FILED [1366112] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to withdraw attorney John Arthur Verdi who represented Bruce Schneier, Chip Pitts and Electronic Privacy Information Center in 10-1157 [Service Date: 03/28/2012 ] [10-1157] (Verdi, John)	RECAP
1207372184	March 30, 2012	CLERK'S ORDER filed [1366590] Upon consideration of respondentsâ unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a response to the motion for reconsideration, it is ORDERED that the motion be granted. Respondents may file a response on or before April 12, 2012. [1365427-2] [10-1157]	RECAP
1207375738	April 12, 2012	RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1368543] by Mary Ellen Callahan, Janet Ann Napolitano and DHS to motion to reconsider [1364130-4] [Service Date: 04/12/2012 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Koppel, John)	RECAP
1207377264	April 18, 2012	REPLY FILED [1369406] by Electronic Privacy Information Center, Chip Pitts and Bruce Schneier to response [1368543-2] [Service Date: 04/18/2012 by CM/ECF NDA] Pages: 1-10. [10-1157] (Rotenberg, Marc)	RECAP
1207382235	May 3, 2012	PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1372216] Upon consideration of petitioner Electronic Privacy Information Centerâs motion for panel reconsideration of the denial of petitionerâs motion for fees, the response thereto, and the reply, it is ORDERED that the motion be denied. Before Judges: Henderson, Tatel and Ginsburg. [10-1157]	RECAP
1207382238	May 3, 2012	PER CURIAM ORDER, En Banc, filed [1372217] Upon consideration of petitioner Electronic Privacy Information Centerâs motion for en banc reconsideration of the denial of petitionerâs motion for fees, the response thereto, and the reply, it is ORDERED that the motion be denied. Before Judges: Sentelle, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith, Kavanaugh and Ginsburg. [10-1157]	RECAP

show / hide docket entries

Case Details

State / Territory:

District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

National Security

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 2, 2010

Closing Date: July 15, 2011

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A non-profit research organization involved with civil liberties, including a right to privacy.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Federal

Department of Homeland Security

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

FISA Title I Warrant (Electronic Surveillance), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1812

Constitutional Clause(s):

Unreasonable search and seizure

Other Dockets:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 10-01157

Special Case Type(s):

Appellate Court is initial court

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Order Duration: 2012 - 2012

Issues

General/Misc.:

Other

Religious programs / policies

Recommended Citation

Case Summary of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/15161/ (last updated 3/23/2019).