First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles and 21 Other Nonprofits File Lawsuit Against NSA Over Metadata Collection

The First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, along with 21 other nonprofit organizations, has initiated a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA), alleging violations of constitutional rights. The case, titled *First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. National Security Agency*, was first filed on July 16, 2013, and later amended on September 10, 2013. The legal action centers on the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata, which the plaintiffs argue infringes upon their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. This case is notable for its focus on the freedom of association, a fundamental principle for nonprofit organizations.

The legal dispute revolves around the constitutionality of the NSA’s practice of collecting and storing metadata from American citizens and nonprofit organizations. The NSA’s Associational Tracking Program (ATP) was established to gather telephone metadata, including call details such as duration, recipients, and other identifying information. This data is intended to support investigations into foreign intelligence threats. The NSA asserts that its actions are authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISC), which permits the collection of tangible items for foreign intelligence purposes.

The plaintiffs argue that the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata chills free speech and association, as it creates a chilling effect on individuals and organizations willing to engage in lawful activities. They contend that the practice undermines the constitutional rights of nonprofit organizations, which rely on the freedom to associate and operate without undue government interference. The Supreme Court has previously recognized the importance of these rights in maintaining a free and open society.

The case remains pending in the Federal District Court for Northern California, with both parties seeking summary judgment. The court must determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that would require a trial. If not, the court can rule in favor of one party. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the balance between national security and individual freedoms.

The legal battle highlights the tension between government surveillance and the rights of nonprofit organizations to operate freely. As the case moves forward, it will be crucial to examine the legal standards that govern government actions and the extent to which they may infringe upon constitutional protections. The pursuit of justice and the protection of civil liberties remain central to the principles of a free society, as emphasized in Micah 6:8, which calls for acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God.

Source: Read the original report