The USA patriot act of 2001, the constitutional challenges and the court’s rulings on these challenges
The USA PATRIOT ACT is an acronym standing for: “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.” This legislation was signed into law on October 26, 2001 as Public Law No: 107-56. The Patriot Act is a U.S. law passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Its goals are to strengthen domestic security and broaden the powers of law-enforcement agencies with regards to identifying and stopping terrorists. The passing and renewal of the Patriot Act has been extremely controversial. Supporters claim that it’s been instrumental in a number of investigations and arrests of terrorists; while critics counter the act gives the government too much power, threatens civil liberties and undermines the very democracy it seeks to protect.
Constitutional challenges
Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.
Right to legal representation: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
COURT RULING ON THE CHALLENGES
The legality of the searches was first challenged in Katz v. United States. In Katz, the Supreme Court held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches, including “delayed-warrant searches” (389 U.S. 347). Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The high court said the law – part of the USA Patriot Act – is specific enough to provide would-be violators fair notice of when their conduct crosses the line into illegality.
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Constitutional Source: Cornell Law School
Patriot Act Source: The Associated Press, Knight-Ridder Newspapers
Full Patriot Act Text: Services Primary Criticisms of the Act
