PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In Re: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
(T-112)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
UNDER SEAL #10,
Movant-Appellant.
UNDER SEAL #1; UNDER SEAL #2;
UNDER SEAL #3; UNDER SEAL #4;
UNDER SEAL #5; UNDER SEAL #6;
UNDER SEAL #7; UNDER SEAL #8; No. 06-2125
UNDER SEAL #9; UNDER SEAL #11;
UNDER SEAL #12; UNDER SEAL 13;
UNDER SEAL #14; UNDER SEAL
#15;, UNDER SEAL #16; UNDER
SEAL #17, UNDER SEAL #18; UNDER
SEAL #19; UNDER SEAL #20; UNDER
SEAL #21; UNDER SEAL #22; UNDER
SEAL #23; UNDER SEAL #24; UNDER
SEAL #25; UNDER SEAL #26; UNDER
SEAL #27; UNDER SEAL #28; UNDER
SEAL #29; UNDER SEAL #30; UNDER
SEAL #31; UNDER SEAL #32; UNDER
SEAL #33; UNDER SEAL #34,
Movants.
2 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
In Re: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
(T-112)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner-Appellee, No. 06-2220
v.
UNDER SEAL #1-#11,
Movants-Appellants.
In Re: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
(T-112)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
UNDER SEAL #1; UNDER SEAL #2;
UNDER SEAL #3; UNDER SEAL #4;
UNDER SEAL #5; UNDER SEAL #6;
No. 06-2313
UNDER SEAL #7; UNDER SEAL #8;
UNDER SEAL #9; UNDER SEAL #10;
UNDER SEAL #11,
Movants-Appellants.
UNDER SEAL #13,
Movant.
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 3
In Re: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
(T-112)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner-Appellee, No. 07-1646
v.
UNDER SEAL #1,
Movant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.
(1:06-mc-00001; 1:06-mc-00002)
Argued: September 23, 2009
Decided: February 24, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge,
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and
Margaret B. SEYMOUR, United States District Judge
for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the
opinion, in which Judge Seymour joined. Chief Judge Traxler
wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in
part.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Steven Karl Barentzen, THE LAW OFFICE OF
STEVEN BARENTZEN, Washington, D.C.; Nancy Anne
4 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
Luque, LUQUE GERAGOS MARINO, LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellants. Gordon D. Kromberg, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mitka T. Baker, DLA PIPER US LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Chuck Rosenberg, United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
OPINION
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
The twelve interrelated corporations in this case refused to
turn over documents demanded by grand jury subpoenas
duces tecum and now appeal a district court decision holding
them in civil contempt.1 One of the corporations, known as
Appellant #10, alleges that it was the subject of unlawful
National Security Agency wiretapping. It thus claims it had
just cause to refuse to comply with its subpoena on the basis
of purported constitutional violations as well as alleged viola-
tions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
(FISA) and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, which govern foreign and domestic sur-
veillance, respectively. The other eleven corporations claim
the district court abused its discretion by holding them in civil
contempt because its orders to comply with the subpoenas
were ambiguous.
For the reasons that follow, we hold that a grand jury
enforcement action is not the appropriate place to litigate the
validity of Appellant #10’s surveillance claims. Additionally,
the district court, which was in the best position to interpret
its orders and the refusals of the other eleven appellants to
comply with them, did not abuse its discretion by holding
1
Because this appeal involves grand jury deliberations, we do not refer
to the twelve appellants by name.
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 5
them in civil contempt. We thus affirm the assessments
imposed on the various appellants.
I.
Appellants are a group of twelve interrelated for-profit and
not-for-profit corporations suspected of participating in the
financing of terrorist activity. In March 2002, search warrants
were executed at the offices shared by appellants and other
related corporations as well as at the homes of several of the
corporations’ principals. Many documents were seized before
being returned approximately eighteen months later in some
two hundred boxes. The documents were then placed in a
storage unit by appellants’ shared counsel, Nancy Luque, and
maintained by her in the condition in which they were
received. Appellants never had actual possession of the docu-
ments after March 2002.
Subsequently, in early 2006, an unrelated grand jury issued
subpoenas duces tecum to each of the appellants through their
common counsel, Ms. Luque. The subpoenas were broad-
ranging and covered all aspects of the entities’ operations. For
instance, the subpoena to Appellant #10 demanded "all corpo-
rate records and books of account" since 2000 and also
demanded any and all documents from any time period in fif-
teen separate categories dealing with a wide variety of finan-
cial transfers, overseas affiliates, and personnel decisions.
Among other things, the subpoenas requested evidence in
appellants’ constructive possession, which was defined to
include documents in the possession of appellants’ agents or
attorneys. Appellants admit that many of the documents
returned following the 2002 investigation were sought by the
2006 grand jury subpoenas. Br. of Appellants at 9. The vari-
ous subpoenas initially demanded production by February 23
or 28, 2006, but no production was forthcoming on those
dates.
6 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
Following preliminary discussions between appellants and
the United States, attorney Luque indicated on March 16 that
no production would be forthcoming unless the government
affirmed or denied whether any of the appellant corporations
were subject to electronic surveillance under Title III of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18
U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 (Title III), the Foreign Intelligence Sur-
veillance Act of 1978 (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq., or
the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) then-recently dis-
closed electronic surveillance program. Following 18 U.S.C.
§ 3504(a)(1), the United States promptly wrote the corpora-
tions, stating that they "were not and are not a subject of elec-
tronic surveillance pursuant to Title III" but denying that
appellants were entitled to notification of any other surveil-
lance.
After appellants produced no documents through the end of
March 2006, the district court entered show cause orders for
all twelve entities to explain why they should not be held in
contempt. A show cause hearing occurred on May 2, 2006. At
the hearing, appellants argued that a contempt finding would
be premature because the grand jury subpoenas were not
themselves court orders. In response, the district court
refrained from holding appellants in contempt, instead making
the following statement on the record:
And likewise with the entities represented by Ms.
Luque, I’m ordering them to compel—to comply
with the subpoena that’s been served on them. I’m
ordering them to appear before the grand jury at the
next date[,] and I’m ordering them to produce the
documents called for by the subpoena.
Nor was this the only time at the May 2 hearing that the dis-
trict court commanded full compliance with the subpoenas.
After ascertaining that the grand jury would be sitting two
days later, the district court stated, "I’m going to order them
[appellants] to appear May 4th. . . . [T]hey’re ordered to
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 7
appear before the grand jury and to produce documents."
Finally, at the close of the hearing, the district court made one
last, explicit statement, noting that "Ms. Luque’s client is
being given an unambiguous, clear order to comply." (empha-
sis added). Assuming that appellants were likely to file
motions to quash the subpoenas, the court also set a schedule
for briefing with a hearing to be held on June 8.
In spite of these orders, appellants provided only a limited
number of documents on May 4 and asked for an extension
until May 12. The district court denied the motion on May 5
in a written order that stated "Production must proceed forth-
with and must be complete as counsel can make it no later
than May 12, 2006." (emphasis in original).
On May 17, eleven of the twelve appellants produced
responsive documents. They did not, however, produce any of
the documents seized in 2002 and maintained by their attor-
ney. Additionally, the last appellant, Appellant #10, did not
produce any responsive documents at all, electing instead to
challenge the legality of the alleged government wiretaps.
On June 7, one day before the next scheduled hearing,
Appellant #10 moved for a finding that it was not in civil con-
tempt. The corporation argued that it had just cause for its
refusal to comply with the subpoena based on the allegation
that it was subject to illegal electronic surveillance. The basis
for this argument was an assertion by Appellant #10’s lawyer
that the corporation and its principals were suspected of ter-
rorist financing and had offices all over the world, thus mak-
ing them likely targets of electronic surveillance.
Additionally, Appellant #10’s lawyer asserted that she and her
clients "heard strange noises, including clicking sounds"
while talking on the telephone.
The other eleven appellants took a different route at the
hearing the next day, arguing they could not be held in con-
tempt unless the government renewed its show cause motion.
8 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
While the district court was far from convinced, out of an
abundance of caution it postponed any decision so the govern-
ment could renew its motion with regard to all twelve corpo-
rations. Yet another hearing was scheduled for June 28, 2006.
At that hearing, attorney Luque argued that the eleven
appellants were not in contempt because by this time they had
produced all documents in their actual physical control. Under
questioning from the district court, however, she admitted that
appellants still had not handed over any of the documents she
had maintained for them in the storage facility since 2003.
She further admitted that she had instructed her paralegal not
to search the storage facility documents in response to the
grand jury subpoenas.
Appellants now also argue that the district court’s May 2
and 5 orders were ambiguous. Because the May 5 written
order stated that production must proceed "forthwith" and be
"complete as counsel can make it no later than May 12,
2006," they claim that it was not clear what the district court
had required and thus that appellants could not be held in con-
tempt.
Additionally at the June 28, 2006 hearing, Luque stipulated
that Appellant #10 had not produced all the records required.
This stipulation was intended to precipitate a determination of
the legality of the subpoena and whether the corporation had
just cause for its refusal to comply. Following the June 28
hearing, no documents were produced by any of the appel-
lants before October 2, 2006. At that time, the district court
issued an order finding both Appellant #10 and the remaining
eleven appellants in contempt for consistent failure to comply
with the May 2, 2006 order (as amended May 5, 2006). In
addition to this finding, the court rejected Appellant #10’s just
cause argument, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3504’s affirm or
deny protections were limited to Title III surveillance at the
grand jury stage. The district court also addressed Appellant
#10’s argument that the National Security Agency’s surveil-
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 9
lance program was illegal, ultimately declining to decide the
question because appellants lacked standing to challenge the
NSA program prior to complying with the grand jury sub-
poena.
The district court imposed an immediate assessment of
$3,000 against all twelve appellants collectively, with addi-
tional amounts of $3,000 per day to accrue until appellants
complied with the subpoenas. The district court later denied
a motion to reconsider but adjusted the accrual date to begin
on October 5, 2006, one day after the appellants received
actual notice of the contempt order. On October 19, 2006, the
eleven appellants turned over more than 10,000 pages of
responsive documents from the storage facility.
In light of this fact, the district court on November 6 found
that the eleven appellants had complied with the subpoenas
and purged their contempt. The court ordered them to pay
$48,000 for sixteen days of contempt (later reduced to
$39,000 for thirteen days based on the October 5 start date).
Also on November 6, the district court found that Appellant
#10 remained in contempt. It therefore modified Appellant
#10’s civil contempt citation to $1,000 per day, starting at the
date of the October contempt order. Appellant #10 provided
all responsive documents the same day and ultimately was
assessed an $18,000 fee. Subsequent to these events, on June
20, 2007, the district court held that Appellant #10 had purged
itself of contempt but still was liable for the contempt amount.
All twelve corporations now appeal their assessments to this
court.
II.
A.
We must first address several preliminary questions before
taking up the issue on the merits. As an initial matter, we
10 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
reject the assertion of all twelve appellants in Appeals No. 06-
2313 and 07-1646 that the contempt fees assessed by the dis-
trict court were criminal fines and thus impermissible unless
imposed with appropriate procedural safeguards. Appellants
argue that the district court imposed the fees as punishment
for past recalcitrance rather than in a forward-looking attempt
to induce compliance.
This argument simply does not comport with the facts. The
district court’s October 2, 2006 order, as amended, indicated
that contempt fees were to begin on October 5, 2006, one day
after appellants received actual notice that they were in con-
tempt. This fact indicates that the contempt order was pro-
spective, rather than punitive, in nature. Appellants had time
to avoid the imposition of any fees and have only themselves
to blame for their decision not to do so. As the Supreme Court
has noted, a contempt assessment "is . . . remedial [and thus
civil] when the defendant can avoid paying the fine simply by
performing the affirmative act required by the court’s order."
See Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632 (1988). That describes
the case before us here.
Appellants’ argument that they should have received at
least a week to comply with the order before fees began to
accrue is nothing more than an invitation for us to second
guess the district court’s discretion, which we decline to do.
Especially in light of the fact that appellants had been served
with their respective subpoenas over eight months earlier,
there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s con-
tempt order.
B.
At the invitation of the court, the parties have tendered sub-
missions on the question of mootness. Although all twelve
appellants have now purged their contempt by complying
with their subpoenas, the appeal has not thereby been ren-
dered moot. Unlike an individual confined for contempt,
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 11
whose lost time cannot be returned by judicial review of the
underlying order, the monetary fees imposed on appellants
suggest an obvious remedy. The eleven corporations still face
an outstanding assessment of $39,000, and Appellant #10 still
faces an outstanding assessment of $18,000. In the event this
court affirms, the assessments will stand; in the event this
court reverses, the assessments will be lifted.
In this situation, we find the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in
Shuffler v. Heritage Bank persuasive. See 720 F.2d 1141 (9th
Cir. 1983). There, as here, a civil contempt order was at issue.
The district court ordered the owners of property in foreclo-
sure to pay their debt or lose their land at auction. Id. at 1143.
The owners did not make the ordered payments, instead
engaging in a wide-ranging series of delaying tactics, and
were eventually held in contempt and ordered to pay $500 per
day until they complied. Id. at 1143-44. Several months later,
the owners finally paid the debt owed the bank (plus interest)
but were still ordered to pay $37,000 for the seventy-four
days the district court determined they were in contempt. Id.
at 1144-45. The Ninth Circuit explicitly recognized that "the
contempt itself ha[d] been purged" but held that fact did not
moot the assessments because the dispute about their propri-
ety and amount remained a live controversy. Id. at 1145. It
upheld the district court’s finding of contempt and remanded
the amount of the assessment to be recalculated in light of
other issues not relevant here. Id. at 1146, 1149. The dispute
is thus an extant one, and we cannot hold that mootness
absolves us of the duty to decide it.
III.
We thus consider the merits. We review the district court’s
findings that Appellant #10 and the other eleven appellants
were in contempt for abuse of discretion. Ashcraft v. Conoco,
Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000). Because the findings
in this case are largely based on the district court’s interpreta-
tion of its own May 2 and 5, 2006 orders, we give its reading
12 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
of those orders especial respect. See JTH Tax, Inc. v. H&R
Block Eastern Tax Servs., Inc., 359 F.3d 699, 705 (4th Cir.
2004) ("When a district court’s decision is based on an inter-
pretation of its own order, our review is even more deferential
because district courts are in the best position to interpret their
own orders."). Insofar as the district court’s determination
was based upon interpretations of law, however, we review
those conclusions de novo. Christian Science Bd. of Dirs. of
the First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Nolan, 259 F.3d 209,
215 (4th Cir. 2001).
IV.
Turning to Appeal No. 06-2125, Appellant #10 raises three
arguments that it says justify the refusal to comply with its
subpoena. First, it asserts that any wiretap that occurred is
unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Second,
Appellant #10 asserts that the Foreign Intelligence Surveil-
lance Act of 1978 (FISA) was violated in this case. The final
claim is that 18 U.S.C. § 3504 was violated because the gov-
ernment’s statement that it conducted no surveillance "pursu-
ant to" Title III does not satisfy Section 3504’s requirement
that the government "affirm or deny" whether surveillance
occurred.
At the same time, relying upon our decision in United
States v. Apple, 915 F.2d 899 (4th Cir. 1990), the government
argues that the district court incorrectly held Appellant #10 to
be an "aggrieved party" under Section 3504(a). We need not
address this question. For even if we assume that Appellant
#10 is aggrieved, the district court did not abuse its discretion
by holding the corporation in contempt for reasons set forth
below.
A.
We shall address Appellant #10’s three claims in turn. We
first address the assertion that the alleged government surveil-
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 13
lance is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
Appellant #10 argues that "[t]he NSA program’s eavesdrop-
ping without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment
because any warrantless search is presumptively unreason-
able." Br. of Appellants at 37. The appellant believes the sub-
poena and its itemized request, as well as those to whom it is
directed, are tainted fruit of the unlawful surveillance. See Br.
of Appellants at 10 (grand jury "subpoena sought certain spe-
cific documents and records giving rise to [Appellant #10’s]
belief it had been the subject of illegal surveillance.").
Regardless of whether Appellant #10 is correct in its
assessment, the constitutional argument is not properly before
us. The Supreme Court has made clear that grand juries are
not the correct forum for litigating such claims. Indeed, the
grand jury has long been empowered to consider a wide range
of information from a variety of sources, whether or not it
would be admissible at trial. See, U.S. v. Calandra, 414 U.S.
338, 344-45 (1974). As the Supreme Court has stated, "nei-
ther the Fifth Amendment nor any other constitutional provi-
sion prescribes the kind of evidence upon which grand juries
must act." Costello v. U.S., 350 U.S. 359, 362 (1956). The
reason for this rule is the grand jury’s function, not in ascer-
taining guilt, but in determining whether a crime may have
occurred. Calandra, 414 U.S. at 344. Virtually any source that
may be helpful to the investigation can be considered. For
example, the Court in United States v. Calandra noted that
"tips, rumors, evidence proffered by the prosecutor, or the
personal knowledge of the grand jurors" may trigger a grand
jury investigation. Id. at 344 (citing Branzenburg v. Hayes,
408 U.S. 665, 701 (1972)).
Further, courts for generations have recognized that a grand
jury indictment need not be based on evidence conforming to
the formal requirements of a trial. As Justice Samuel Nelson,
riding circuit in the 1850’s, explained:
No case has been cited, nor have we been able to
find any, furnishing an authority for looking into and
14 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
revising the judgment of the grand jury upon the evi-
dence, for the purpose of determining whether or not
the finding was founded upon sufficient proof, or
whether there was a deficiency in respect to any part
of the complaint.
U.S. v. Reed, 27 F. Cas. 727, 738 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1852) (cited
in U.S. v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 54 (1992)). See also Blair
v. U.S., 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919) (same). As this circuit
explained only recently, "a facially valid indictment is not
subject to dismissal simply because the grand jury may have
considered improper evidence, or because it was presented
with information or evidence that may contravene a constitu-
tional privilege." U.S. v. Jefferson, 546 F.3d 300, 312 (2008).
See also Bank of Nova Scotia v. U.S., 487 U.S. 250, 261
(1988) ("the mere fact that evidence itself is unreliable is not
sufficient to require a dismissal of the indictment").
Because of this rule, courts have upheld grand juries’ use
of a broad range of evidence that would be inadmissible at
trial. For instance, the Calandra Court allowed consideration
of unlawfully seized evidence and refused to apply the Fourth
Amendment’s exclusionary rule at the grand jury stage.
Calandra, 414 U.S. at 341-42. In doing so, the Court relied
on Costello v. United States, in which the Supreme Court
upheld a tax evasion conviction when the grand jury consid-
ered only hearsay evidence in returning an indictment. 350
U.S. at 361. Other decisions have reached similar results. Our
decision in United States v. Jefferson rejected an invitation to
engage in a comprehensive review of grand jury proceedings
alleged to infringe on a congressman’s constitutional Speech
or Debate Clause rights. 546 F.3d at 312-14. See also U.S. v.
Johnson, 419 F.2d 56 (4th Cir. 1969) (refusing to review
grand jury proceedings to determine whether privileged legis-
lative materials were considered). It is thus well-established
that grand juries may consider broad-ranging sources of evi-
dence, admissible at trial or not, as part of their mandate to
uncover criminal acts.
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 15
Additionally, Calandra noted that limiting the evidence
available to grand juries provides little additional protection
to individual rights. As the Court explained, "[t]he purpose of
the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy
of the search victim. . . . the rule’s prime purpose is to deter
future unlawful police conduct." Calandra, 414 U.S. at 347.
Because potential inadmissibility at trial already provides a
compelling incentive for investigators to respect Fourth
Amendment strictures, Calandra saw no reason to extend the
rule:
Any incremental deterrent effect which might be
achieved by extending the rule to grand jury pro-
ceedings is uncertain at best. . . . The incentive to
disregard the requirement of the Fourth Amendment
solely to obtain an indictment from a grand jury is
substantially negated by the inadmissibility of the
illegally seized evidence in a subsequent criminal
prosecution.
Id. at 351. While there may be other objections that appellant
may interpose as to the subpoena, a Fourth Amendment claim
is not among them. Thus, regardless of whether or not the
appellants in the current case were subjected to unlawful sur-
veillance, as a preliminary matter there is no constitutional bar
to a grand jury considering the subpoenaed documents. If
there is no constitutional bar to the consideration of such evi-
dence, there can be no constitutional challenge to its produc-
tion. Appellant’s belief that the subpoena is the fruit of the
surveillance necessarily rests upon the very constitutional
claim that, if litigated, the Supreme Court and this court have
held would undermine the grand jury’s investigative function.
B.
Appellant #10 further insists that the government violated
FISA itself, arguing that "FISA now governs all foreign intel-
ligence surveillance conducted by the government and . . . the
16 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
NSA program does not comply with FISA." Br. of Appellants
at 42. If appellant is correct, FISA directs courts to "suppress
the evidence which was unlawfully obtained or derived from
electronic surveillance of the aggrieved person," 50 U.S.C.
§ 1806(g) (emphasis added). Because Appellant #10 believes
its subpoena is derived from unlawful surveillance, see Br. of
Appellants at 10, it claims it was justified in disregarding the
subpoena. For its part, the government asserts that litigating
the validity of NSA surveillance at any stage "would require
disclosure of state secrets, at great cost to the national security
of the United States" and in violation of the Executive’s
inherent power. Br. of Gov’t at 18. But both arguments speak
more broadly than necessary, because the language of FISA
simply precludes litigants from using that legislation to chal-
lenge surveillance at the grand jury stage.
FISA contains both a notice clause as well as an exclusion-
ary procedure for illegally seized electronic surveillance. See
50 U.S.C. § 1806(c) and (e). The notice clause requires the
government to notify the subject of a wiretap before the gov-
ernment introduces "any information obtained or derived from
an electronic surveillance." 50 U.S.C. § 1806(c). Similarly,
FISA’s exclusionary procedure allows a party aggrieved by
allegedly unlawful "evidence obtained or derived from an
electronic surveillance" to "move to suppress the evidence."
50 U.S.C. § 1806(e).
The list of legal proceedings at which those FISA sections
apply is phrased very similarly to the domestic surveillance
regulations of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, but with one significant exception:
FISA omits any reference to grand juries and legislative com-
mittees, while they are included in Title III. Thus FISA allows
motions to suppress illegal wiretaps or the fruits thereof "be-
fore any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body,
or other authority," 50 U.S.C. § 1806(e), and FISA’s notice
provision contains an identically worded clause. See 50
U.S.C. § 1806(c). In striking contrast, Section 2515 of Title
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 17
III prohibits use of illegal wiretaps "before any court, grand
jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative
committee, or other authority." 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (emphasis
added). Grand juries are similarly included in Section
3504(a)’s notice requirement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3504(a)
(requiring the government to affirm or deny the existence of
unlawful surveillance "[i]n any . . . proceeding in or before
any . . . grand jury"). The omission of grand juries from
FISA’s exclusionary and notice mandates is too pointed to be
inadvertent, and too clear a recognition that, at least in the
most critical area of foreign and national security surveil-
lance, Congress did not seek to displace the historic grand
jury investigatory norms that Calandra and Costello recog-
nized.
The specifics of 50 U.S.C. § 1806(c) and (e) must be given
their due weight. Congress plainly wished to provide some
limits on litigating foreign intelligence matters. The telling
absence of grand juries from Section 1806(c) allows the gov-
ernment to introduce FISA evidence at the grand jury stage
without triggering notice procedures. Since the exclusion pro-
visions of Section 1806(e) also pointedly omit reference to
grand juries, and since the government can introduce and use
evidence under Section 1806(c) at the grand jury stage with-
out providing notice, we are powerless to allow FISA surveil-
lance challenges in fora where Congress has declined to do
so. There may be other places to litigate FISA surveillance,
but Congress has made plain that grand juries are not among
them. In sum, we must give proper weight to the different
ways Congress drafted the notice and exclusionary provisions
of Title III and FISA, provisions that are parallel except for
the stark omission of grand juries in the latter statute.
Nor is this result surprising. Congress has long recognized
that a separate set of guidelines and rules are needed in the
foreign intelligence context. For example, Title III as origi-
nally enacted disclaimed any application to the foreign sur-
veillance sphere, noting that "[n]othing contained in this
18 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
chapter . . . shall limit the constitutional power of the Presi-
dent to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect
the Nation . . ., to obtain foreign intelligence information . .
., or to protect national security information against foreign
intelligence activities." 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3), Pub. L. 90-351,
Title III, § 802, 82 Stat. 197, 214, repealed by Foreign Intelli-
gence Surveillance Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-511, § 201(c), 92
Stat. 1783.
While this language was subsequently removed to accom-
modate FISA, the change was not the result of congressional
rethinking of foreign surveillance’s distinctive status but
rather because of FISA’s comprehensive treatment of the sub-
ject. The law was enacted as "An Act to authorize electronic
surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information," Pub.
L. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783. The statute, as its name indicates,
regulates foreign intelligence surveillance, and it covers every
aspect of the same, addressing such topics as agents of foreign
powers, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b), international terrorism, 50
U.S.C. § 1801(c), sabotage, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(d), and prolifer-
ation of weapons of mass destruction, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(7),
(p). The Act was "designed to permit the Government to
gather necessary foreign intelligence information by means of
electronic surveillance but under limitations and according to
procedural guidelines which will better safeguard the rights of
individuals." S. Rep. No. 95-604(I), p.9 (1978). Congress
obviously desired in foreign intelligence to "[s]trik[e] a sound
balance between the need for such surveillance and the pro-
tection of civil liberties." Id. In light of the fact that Congress
intended FISA to strike this balance, it is significant that
grand juries were omitted from the legislation.
It is imperative that we not fashion a departure from con-
gressionally enacted norms without some clear expression of
congressional intent. Here there is not only no clear expres-
sion of congressional intent, but the statute governing foreign
and intelligence surveillance indicates Congress intended its
exclusionary mandate to stop short of grand jury proceedings.
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 19
To fashion notice and exclusionary requirements of our own
in the grand jury context would place us well out in front of
Congress and the Executive in a sensitive area in which the
Constitution does, after all, assign to the elective branches of
our government substantial powers. While Congress could
certainly expand FISA in the manner that appellant seeks, it
has not done so. That choice is for a coordinate branch of our
government to make.
Our circuit law is wholly consistent with this view. In a
decision upholding contempt awards against grand jury wit-
nesses who argued (among other things) that they were enti-
tled to notice of FISA wiretaps before testifying, we noted:
"Neither the statutory language [of FISA] nor the legislative
history requires notification prior to grand jury questioning.
Congress certainly knew how to include grand jury investiga-
tions as proceedings before which notice must be given to
overheard persons because it said so in the [Title III] domestic
wiretap context." In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 856 F.2d
685, 690 (4th Cir. 1988) (emphasis in original). The logic of
the decision is illuminating for two reasons. First, it again
highlights the significant omission of grand juries from
FISA’s Sections 1806(c) and (e). Second, its emphasis on
Congress’s decision not to require notice prior to grand jury
questioning in the foreign intelligence sphere cautions against
circumventing that congressional judgment with a contrary
judgment of our own.
C.
Appellant #10’s remaining claim is that the government did
not satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 3504(a)(1) because it did not properly
"affirm or deny the occurrence" of any violations of Title III’s
domestic wiretap provisions.2 In response to a demand under
2
The full text of 18 U.S.C. § 3504(a)(1) states that:
[U]pon a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible
because it is the primary product of an unlawful act or because
it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act, the oppo-
nent of the claim shall affirm or deny the occurrence of the
alleged unlawful act.
20 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
Section 3504(a), the government wrote on March 27, 2006
that the subpoenaed corporations—including Appellant #10—
"were not and are not a subject of electronic surveillance pur-
suant to Title III." Appellant #10 now asserts that this lan-
guage only denied "the use of any legal surveillance pursuant
to Title III" and did not "admit or deny whether [Appellant
#10] was the subject of illegal electronic surveillance." Br. of
Appellants at 38 (emphasis in original). Again the argument
is that the government’s admission of illegal surveillance
would have indicated that the subpoena was tainted, establish-
ing just cause under 28 U.S.C. § 1826 to refuse to comply
with it. See Br. of Appellants at 23. Because we believe that
the letter satisfied the government’s obligation to affirm or
deny Title III surveillance, we must reject Appellant #10’s
final argument.
As noted, the letter’s actual language informed the subpoe-
naed corporations that they "were not and are not a subject of
electronic surveillance pursuant to Title III." That language
indicates that no Title III surveillance, lawful, unlawful, or
any other kind, took place. The tone of the letter is not equiv-
ocal, but emphatic. The letter employs the negative "not"
twice to state a denial that Title III surveillance of Appellant
#10 occurred. It constitutes a denial under the statute, because
there can be no unlawful surveillance under Title III if no
Title III surveillance at all occurred. The district court thought
this as well, stating that the government’s letter satisfied Sec-
tion 3504(a), holding that "[t]he government has met the Title
III obligation to affirm or deny the use of illegal electronic
surveillance." Were the letter something other than the plain
denial it plainly appears to be, the government would have
proceeded in nothing less than bad faith.
We do not find dispositive appellant’s proffered distinction
between "pursuant to" and "in violation of" Title III—a dis-
tinction that presupposes a deliberate sleight of the drafting
hand. While lawyers, to be sure, can be very crafty in how
they put things, we judges too can squint so hard at language
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 21
that the plain becomes ambiguous. Indeed, the government’s
letter responded to a similarly-worded demand from counsel
for Appellant #10, who requested that the government "advise
me whether any of my clients were, or still are, the subject of
electronic surveillance under the Title III." (emphasis added).
The difference between "under" and "pursuant to" escapes us,
and the government’s use of a response stating that no surveil-
lance occurred "pursuant to" Title III can thus not be claimed
an attempt at evasion. The point of the government’s letter
was to indicate in a comprehensive manner that Title III was
not the basis of any surveillance. We may not parse the letter
to the point that we strip it of plain meaning and divest it of
plain import.
In most cases where surveillance is at issue, there are no
foreign ties, and the government would simply affirm that sur-
veillance was undertaken "pursuant to" Title III. Here, by
contrast, there was a denial, and it does not seem surprising
in a case with suspected foreign connections that the govern-
ment would not proceed under Title III.
The question remains whether Appellant #10 can litigate
the denial. The denial forfeits the government’s future right to
rely on Title III for the remainder of the proceeding, including
in those cases where the evidence turns out not to be admissi-
ble under other sources of surveillance power. The statute’s
lack of any procedure for litigating a denial on the spot, how-
ever, indicates that Congress did not provide an avenue for
such a contest. Rather, the proper remedy is exclusion under
Title III or FISA, a remedy which is triggered when the gov-
ernment seeks to introduce evidence into a covered proceed-
ing. See 18 U.S.C. § 2515; 50 U.S.C. § 1806(e). Congress of
course could have provided a mechanism for litigation of the
denial, perhaps similar to the provisions of the Classified
Information Procedures Act, 18 U.S.C., App. 3 §§ 5, 6, which
allows courts to resolve questions about the use and admissi-
bility of classified materials in preliminary hearings before
criminal trials. However, Congress did not make a compara-
22 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
ble decision here. For better or worse, Section 3504 provides
some presumption of regularity to a denial where the govern-
ment is not relying on Title III authorization for the introduc-
tion of evidence. In sum, we agree with the district court that
the government thus satisfied Section 3504 by denying that
any Title III surveillance took place.
D.
In conclusion, while the parties ask us to rule broadly, we
think it prudent to proceed in a more narrow fashion. We can
sum up the issues straightforwardly. Appellant #10 argues
that any surveillance was unconstitutional, disregarded FISA,
and violated Section 3504. We have canvassed appellant’s
various claims but conclude that, whatever may or may not be
their eventual merit, they simply are not properly litigated at
this preliminary stage. Calandra and Costello indicate that
whatever the constraints on admissibility at trial, there is no
constitutional infirmity to the introduction of this evidence at
the grand jury stage. Similarly, FISA cannot form the basis
for litigating this challenge because neither its notice require-
ment nor its exclusionary mandate, 50 U.S.C. § 1806(c) and
(e), apply at the grand jury stage. Finally, as to Section 3504,
the government is obliged to affirm or deny whether Title III
surveillance took place, but that requirement has, in the dis-
trict court’s view and in our own, been satisfied. The different
claims lead to the same conclusion, namely that this grand
jury enforcement action is not the appropriate place to raise
a challenge to the alleged surveillance of Appellant #10. The
broader claims advanced as to NSA surveillance are not nec-
essary to the disposition of this appeal, and they must await
another day.
V.
Finally, the other eleven appellants argue in Appeal No. 06-
2220 that the district court abused its discretion by finding
them in contempt of its May 2, 2006 order. Appellants argue
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 23
that the order was ambiguous and that they did not know they
were violating a valid decree when they failed to comply.
These arguments simply are difficult to square with the facts
of the record. Further, it is within the considered discretion of
the district court to evaluate efforts made to comply with a
subpoena and the amount of time reasonable for compliance.
Both parties agree that civil contempt must be shown by
"clear and convincing" evidence of:
(1) the existence of a valid decree of which the
alleged contemnor had actual or constructive knowl-
edge; (2) . . . that the decree was in the movant’s
"favor"; (3) . . . that the alleged contemnor by its
conduct violated the terms of the decree, and had
knowledge (at least constructive knowledge) of such
violations; and (4) . . . that [the] movant suffered
harm as a result.
Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000)
(alterations in original; internal citations omitted). When eval-
uating a district court’s interpretation of its own decree, we
are properly respectful of the district court’s superior position
to evaluate its order. JTH Tax, Inc. v. H&R Block Eastern Tax
Servs., Inc., 359 F.3d 699, 705 (4th Cir. 2004).
Far from abusing its discretion, it appears that the district
court was the very embodiment of patience. Although given
verbally, the district court’s May 2, 2006 instructions were
direct, explicit, and left no doubt what was required. The dis-
trict court stated, "I’m ordering [appellants] . . . to comply
with the subpoena that’s been served on them. I’m ordering
them to appear before the grand jury at the next date[,] and
I’m ordering them to produce the documents called for by the
subpoena." It taxes the imagination to conceive of a way in
which the district court could have been more explicit in its
order, and appellants cannot argue that it was ambiguous or
that it did not give them knowledge of what was required.
24 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
And if there were any question about what the district court
meant, that doubt was removed only minutes later when the
judge stated, "I’m going to order them [appellants] to appear
May 4th. . . . [T]hey’re ordered to appear before the grand
jury and to produce documents." Yet a third time at that same
hearing the court stated, "Ms. Luque’s client is being given an
unambiguous, clear order to comply [i.e., with the subpoe-
nas]." (emphasis added).
Instead of immediately beginning production with a goal of
completing it by May 4, appellants produced only a handful
of materials before asking for an extension. Nor was the
extension request supported by evidence that appellants were
making all possible efforts to comply but simply did not have
enough time to respond. Appellants later did argue the volume
of documents was too large, but they could point to no signifi-
cant efforts to comply in the preceding two days. Arguments
that complete compliance was impossible in the time allotted
do not excuse failure even to attempt compliance.
Nor can appellants convincingly argue that the district
court’s order was made ambiguous by the subsequent May 5,
2006 written order. That order, issued after appellants had
already violated the May 4 deadline, stated that "[p]roduction
must proceed forthwith and must be complete as counsel can
make it no later than May 12, 2006." (emphasis in original).
District courts "need only adopt a reasonable construction of
the terms contained in their orders." JTH Tax, Inc., 359 F.3d
at 706 (citing Cave v. Singletary, 84 F.3d 1350, 1354 (11th
Cir. 1996); Michigan v. Allen Park, 954 F.2d 1201, 1213 (6th
Cir. 1992)). Regardless of whether the words "forthwith" and
"complete as counsel can make it" introduced ambiguity, the
district court was eminently reasonable in its October determi-
nation that a contempt citation was warranted. Five months of
delay met neither the definition of "forthwith" nor "complete."
Finally, appellants cannot argue that they did not know they
were required to turn over the documents their attorney had
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 25
stored on their behalf after the 2002 search warrants. The sub-
poenas clearly stated that appellants were required to
"[p]roduce all responsive documents in the possession, con-
structive possession, custody or control of [each entity]."
(emphasis added) (subpoena to Appellant #10). Furthermore,
the subpoenas explicitly defined "constructive possession" as
including "documents or records in the actual or physical pos-
session of any of [the entities’] agents, employees, officers,
directors, trustees, attorneys, bailees, designees, successors-
in-interest, or any other person having actual or physical pos-
session of its documents or records." (emphasis added).
Appellants had been in possession of the subpoenas since
early 2006, or approximately three months by the time of the
May orders and some eight months by October when they
were finally held in contempt. When ordered to comply with
the subpoenas in the explicit terms used by the district court,
it is impossible to give credence to arguments that they were
uncertain what was required. In light of such direct wording,
there is no room to argue that the district court abused its dis-
cretion. The criminal justice system properly embodies virtues
of patience and procedural fairness, but its attachment to due
process does not countenance undue delay, and its intrinsic
complexity shall not be used by appellants or any other to turn
the system on itself. In sum, we commend the district court
for its care in the face of trying circumstances, and we affirm
its judgment for the reasons herein expressed.
AFFIRMED
TRAXLER, Chief Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in
part:
The majority affirms both fines imposed in this case. I
agree that the fine imposed on the eleven appellants other than
Appellant #10 should be affirmed, and I therefore concur in
Parts II, III, and V (except for the last sentence) of the major-
ity opinion.
26 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
The issue I raise is this. When an aggrieved party claims
that evidence it has been subpoenaed to produce before a
grand jury is inadmissible because the subpoena is fruit of
illegal electronic surveillance, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3504(a)(1)
(West 2000) requires the government to affirm or deny that
such unlawful surveillance occurred. To serve its purpose,
§ 3504(a)(1) requires an answer that is "factual, unambiguous,
[and] unequivocal," United States v. Apple, 915 F.2d 899, 911
(4th Cir. 1990). Thus, in my view, when the government
refuses to deny the illegal surveillance or provides an answer
that is evasive, the aggrieved party has just cause to refuse to
comply with the subpoena. I believe that the district court
erred in ruling otherwise in this case and in holding Appellant
#10 in contempt. Because I would vacate the fine imposed on
Appellant #10 on that basis, I respectfully dissent in part.
I.
A.
More than forty years ago, Congress enacted a comprehen-
sive scheme regulating wiretapping and electronic surveil-
lance in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 ("Title III" or "the Act"). See Pub. L. No.
90-351, 82 Stat. 211 (1968); 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2510-2522 (West
2000 & Supp. 2009). As is relevant here, "[e]xcept as other-
wise specifically provided" in Title III, the Act makes it a
crime to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or
to disclose or use information obtained through such intercep-
tions. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511(1).1 Title III also provides that nei-
1
The Act identifies a number of exceptions to its general prohibition.
For example, it authorizes the interception of a communication when the
interceptor is a party to the communication. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511(2)(c),
(d). An interception is also authorized when one of the parties to the com-
munication has given prior consent, so long as the interceptor is acting
under color of law or is not intercepting the communication for the pur-
pose of committing a crime or tort. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511(2)(c), (d).
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 27
ther improperly intercepted communications nor the fruits
thereof "may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or
other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, . . . or
other authority of the United States." 18 U.S.C.A. § 2515; see
also 18 U.S.C.A. § 2518(10) (providing procedures for mov-
ing to suppress such evidence).
As originally enacted, Title III provided that it did not
"limit the constitutional power of the President to take such
measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation . . . , to
obtain foreign intelligence information . . . , or to protect
national security information against foreign intelligence
activities." Pub. L. 90-351, Title III, § 802, 82 Stat. 197, 214
("the constitutional power exception"). In 1978, however,
Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 ("FISA"), Pub. L. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783, in order "to
curb the practice by which the Executive Branch may conduct
warrantless electronic surveillance on its own unilateral deter-
mination that national security justifies it," S. Rep. No. 95-
604(I). See 50 U.S.C.A. §§ 1801-1862 (West 2003 & Supp.
2009). FISA set forth a procedure under which the govern-
ment could obtain warrants to conduct electronic surveillance
for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information.
See 50 U.S.C.A. § 1802. It also established a court to review
applications and issue surveillance orders upon demonstration
by the government that, among other things, it had probable
cause to believe that "the target of the electronic surveillance
is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50
U.S.C.A. § 1805(a)(2)(A).2 FISA makes it a crime to "inten-
Title III further allows the interception, use, or disclosure of wire and oral
communications by law enforcement when the officers are investigating
enumerated crimes and obtain judicial approval, which may be given only
when certain strict conditions are fulfilled. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2516, 2518;
see also 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511(2)(a), (b) (other exceptions).
2
Each application by the government for a FISA order must contain,
inter alia, a certification "that a significant purpose of the surveillance is
to obtain foreign intelligence information" and "that such information can-
not reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques." 50
U.S.C.A. § 1804(a)(6).
28 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
tionally . . . engage[] in electronic surveillance under color of
law except as authorized by" statute.3 50 U.S.C.A.
§ 1809(a)(1).
With FISA’s enactment, Congress amended Title III,
repealing the constitutional power exception and replacing it
with language excluding from Title III’s scope (1) the con-
ducting of electronic surveillance by a government employee
in accordance with FISA, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511(2)(e);4 (2)
"the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign
intelligence information from international or foreign commu-
nications"; (3) "foreign intelligence activities conducted in
accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving
a foreign electronic communications system"; and (4) "utiliz-
ing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in"
FISA, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511(2)(f).5 Congress also added lan-
guage specifying that statutorily provided procedures are "the
exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined
in [FISA], and the interception of domestic wire and oral
communications may be conducted." 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 2511(2)(f).
Also pertinent to this case is 28 U.S.C.A. § 1826(a) (West
2006), which provides, as is relevant here, that a federal court
may hold a witness in a grand jury proceeding in contempt
when he "refuses without just cause shown to comply with an
order of the court to testify or provide other information."
3
FISA creates a defense to prosecution for this crime for any "law
enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official
duties [when] the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted
pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent juris-
diction." 50 U.S.C.A. § 1809(b).
4
The 1978 amendments also added 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511(2)(a)(ii), autho-
rizing communication common carriers to provide information to certain
persons.
5
There is no language in Title III as amended that excludes from the
scope of the Act the acquisition by the government of foreign intelligence
information from domestic communications.
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 29
Considering 28 U.S.C.A. § 1826 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2515
together, the Supreme Court has held that a witness has just
cause to refuse to comply with a grand jury subpoena—and
thus, cannot be held in contempt for refusing to comply—if
the subpoena is based on information derived from electronic
surveillance in violation of Title III. See Gelbard v. United
States, 408 U.S. 41, 59-61 (1972).
In order to facilitate attempts to accomplish the otherwise
difficult task of proving that evidence was obtained illegally,
Congress passed the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970,
see Pub. L. No. 91-452, tit. VII, § 702(a), 84 Stat. 922, 935-
36 (1970), which provides, as is relevant here, that:
In any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before
any . . . grand jury, . . . upon a claim by a party
aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because it is
the primary product of an unlawful act or because it
was obtained by exploitation of an unlawful act, the
opponent of the claim shall affirm or deny the occur-
rence of the alleged unlawful act.
18 U.S.C.A. § 3504(a)(1). "[U]nlawful act" is broadly defined
as "the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device (as
defined in [18 U.S.C.A. § 2510]) in violation of the Constitu-
tion or laws of the United States or any regulation or standard
promulgated pursuant thereto." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3504(b).
Claims asserted under § 3504 cannot be based on specula-
tion, see United States v. Pacella, 622 F.2d 640, 643 (2d Cir.
1980), and before the government’s obligation to affirm or
deny is triggered, a party claiming to be the victim of an ille-
gal interception must first establish that the interception
affected his interests, see United States v. Apple, 915 F.2d
899, 905 (4th Cir. 1990). To satisfy this standing requirement,
an aggrieved party must assert "a definite ‘claim.’" Id. A cog-
nizable "claim" may be a mere assertion so long as it consti-
tutes a "positive statement that illegal surveillance has taken
30 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
place." Id. The claimant, however, must also make a prima
facie showing that he was "aggrieved" by the surveillance,
meaning "that he was a party to an intercepted communica-
tion, that the government’s efforts were directed at him, or
that the intercepted communications took place on his prem-
ises." Id.
Once a claimant has made a cognizable claim, the govern-
ment’s response must be "factual, unambiguous, [and]
unequivocal." Id. at 911. The government’s failure to respond
sufficiently to the claim constitutes just cause for the claimant
to refuse to comply with the subpoena. See In re Grand Jury
Matter, 906 F.2d 78, 91 (3d Cir. 1990) ("It is well settled that
the government’s failure to respond adequately to a claim of
electronic surveillance constitutes just cause for refusal to
comply with an order to provide evidence before a grand
jury."); cf. Apple, 915 F.2d at 911 (vacating defendant’s con-
victions when district court, without requiring government to
sufficiently affirm or deny that any of her phone conversa-
tions were illegally intercepted, rejected her § 3504 motions
asserting that evidence against her was obtained via illegal
electronic surveillance).
B.
In early February 2006, counsel for the appellants
("Counsel") accepted service of the subpoenas duces tecum
issued to her clients. In a letter to the government dated
March 16, 2006, Counsel noted the then-recent revelations
regarding the existence of "a secret warrantless wiretapping
and electronic surveillance program in connection with
alleged terrorist[] activities within the United States." J.A. 89.
Counsel noted that "press reports and statements by Attorney
General Alberto Gonzalez strongly suggest[ed] that the gov-
ernment [was] also engaging in secret warrantless surveil-
lance of domestic communications as well" as international
communications. J.A. 89. She therefore requested before she
produced any documents that the government inform her
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 31
whether any of her clients had been, or still were, the subject
of electronic surveillance under Title III, FISA, "the National
Security Agency’s recently disclosed domestic surveillance
program or any other yet to be disclosed program." J.A. 89.
Counsel contended in the letter that "[t]he secret warrant-
less electronic surveillance discussed above violates Title III,
FISA and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution." J.A.
89. She further maintained that she and her clients "ha[d] rea-
son to believe that the government ha[d] engaged – pursuant
to the secret NSA program or otherwise – in illegal warrant-
less electronic surveillance of communications of not only
[her] clients, but of [her] as well," which constituted "an
‘unlawful act’ as that term i[s] defined in 18 U.S.C.
§ 2510(5)." J.A. 89. Accordingly, "pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3504(a)," she "request[ed] that the United States immedi-
ately ‘affirm or deny the occurrence of (any such) alleged
unlawful act[s].’" J.A. 89 (second alteration in original). To
the extent that she or her clients had been subject to such ille-
gal surveillance, Counsel asked for "a full inventory, along
with tapes, transcripts or other records, of any and all inter-
cepted communications." J.A. 89. Counsel stated that the par-
ties required the requested information "to determine not only
the legality of any such surveillance but also whether any of
the grand jury subpoenas are the fruits of any such illegal sur-
veillance" and whether her clients’ attorney-client privilege
had been violated. J.A. 89.
The government responded with a letter dated March 27,
2006, acknowledging Counsel’s position that her clients
would not comply with the subpoena until the government
advised her whether they "were or still are the subject of elec-
tronic surveillance under Title III, FISA, an NSA program, or
any other yet to be disclosed program." J.A. 92. The letter
stated that her clients "were not and are not a subject of elec-
tronic surveillance pursuant to Title III" but maintained that
Counsel was "not entitled to notification of any other type of
surveillance." J.A. 92. The letter added that even assuming
32 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
that her clients "were the subject of some other type of sur-
veillance, they could not contest the legality of such surveil-
lance at the grand jury stage." J.A. 92 (emphasis in original).
The government then moved ex parte for orders for the
appellants to show cause why they should not be held in con-
tempt for their alleged failure to comply with the subpoenas.
The court subsequently ordered all of the appellants to com-
ply with the subpoenas. Counsel informed the court on May
17 that only Appellant #10 would challenge its subpoena on
the basis of the government’s alleged illegal surveillance and
its refusal to admit or deny the illegal surveillance. On June
7, Appellant #10 moved, on that basis, for a finding that it
was not in civil contempt. Appellant #10 provided several rea-
sons for its belief that it had been the subject of illegal gov-
ernment surveillance, many of which centered around its
claim that it and its principals were a primary focus of the
government’s post-September 11 anti-terrorist efforts and
therefore were very likely a target of the government’s secret
electronic surveillance. Appellant #10 pointed to the follow-
ing facts:
• the government’s announced electronic surveil-
lance program targeted people with known links to
al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations;
• following the September 11 attacks, Appellant
#10, along with several alleged related entities and
several of its alleged principals, were named as
defendants in civil suits in which the government
alleged it financially supported al Qaeda;
• the government executed a search warrant on
Appellant #10’s offices in March of 2002 looking for
evidence of money laundering, tax evasion, and the
financing of terrorism;
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 33
• the government conducted searches the same day
and the next day of the offices of several related enti-
ties and several of Appellant #10’s principals;
• after the March 2002 searches, Appellant #10’s
principals were routinely detained when returning
from travel, and Appellant #10’s executive director
on one occasion was detained and interrogated at an
airport before a scheduled overseas flight, prompting
a belief that they were on a terrorism watch list;
• after the March 2002 searches, Counsel and sev-
eral individuals associated with Appellant #10
"heard strange noises, including clicking sounds"
while talking on the telephone to Appellant #10’s
principals and while talking on their home phones,
J.A. 455;
• in its separate prosecution of an associate of
Appellant #10’s, the government claimed to have
intercepted 20,000 hours and 400,000 of the asso-
ciates’ calls using NSA surveillance.
In an October 2, 2006, order, the district court found that
Appellant #10 established standing under § 3504 by asserting
the occurrence of the illegal interceptions and by demonstrat-
ing a colorable basis for concluding that Appellant #10’s
communications were intercepted. The court determined,
therefore, that Title III obligated the government "to affirm or
deny the use of illegal electronic surveillance." J.A. 1023.
Although the court found that the government had "refused
to address whether [Appellant #10] had been the subject of
surveillance under presidentially approved warrantless inter-
ception of electronic communications" and had "refused to
admit or deny whether [Counsel] herself, or any of her indi-
vidual clients were subject to electronic surveillance," J.A.
1007, the court nonetheless ruled that the government’s
34 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
response was sufficient. The court reasoned that the govern-
ment was not required to admit or deny that Appellant #10
was the subject of electronic surveillance in violation of Title
III or the Fourth Amendment because it was possible that the
government’s alleged surveillance was authorized by FISA or
the inherent national security powers granted to the President
by the Constitution. The district court ruled that the govern-
ment was not required to admit or deny that it conducted elec-
tronic surveillance in violation of FISA because fruit of a
FISA violation need not be excluded from a grand jury pro-
ceeding.
Finding that Appellant #10 had no just cause to refuse to
comply with the subpoena, the court held Appellant #10 in
contempt and fined it for its refusal to comply with the court’s
May 2 order, with the amount of the fine to increase daily
until it fully complied.6 Ultimately, the district court deter-
mined Appellant #10’s total fine to be $18,000.
C.
The appellants now argue that the district court erred in
holding Appellant #10 in contempt without requiring the gov-
ernment to affirm or deny whether Appellant #10 was the sub-
ject of any illegal electronic surveillance. I agree.7
6
The district court initially imposed a $3,000 fine on all 12 appellants
collectively, with the fine continuing to accrue at a rate of $3,000 per day
until they fully complied with the May 2 order. On November 6, 2006,
when the district court ordered the contempt fine to stop accruing against
the other eleven appellants, the court retroactively revised the fine against
Appellant #10 to $1,000 per day from October 2, 2006, until it achieved
full compliance. That same day, Appellant #10 complied fully.
7
The government argues that the district court’s determination that the
government was not required to affirm or deny that it conducted unlawful
electronic surveillance of Appellant #10 can be affirmed on the ground
that, the district court’s ruling notwithstanding, Appellant #10 did not
actually establish that it was an "aggrieved" party. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3504(a)(1). Because I believe that the district court properly found that
Appellant #10 made a prima facie showing that it was aggrieved by the
government’s surveillance, I would not disturb the district court’s determi-
nation on that point.
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 35
Because the government failed to deny that Appellant #10
was the subject of any illegal electronic surveillance, our first
order of business is to clarify exactly what facts the govern-
ment did affirm or deny. As I have outlined, Counsel, in addi-
tion to requesting that the government affirm or deny that it
subjected her or her clients to illegal electronic surveillance,
requested that the government specifically inform her whether
any of her clients had been, or still were, the subject of elec-
tronic surveillance under Title III, FISA, "the National Secur-
ity Agency’s recently-disclosed domestic surveillance
program or any other yet to be disclosed program." J.A. 89.
The government responded to the second question that Coun-
sel’s clients "were not and are not a subject of electronic sur-
veillance pursuant to Title III," and refused to provide
"notification of any other type of surveillance." J.A. 92. In so
doing, the government clearly refused to affirm or deny the
allegation that Counsel’s clients had been the subject of ille-
gal electronic surveillance, and the government also refused
to answer whether they had been the subject of electronic sur-
veillance pursuant to FISA, the government’s announced
extra-statutory surveillance program, or any other as-yet
unannounced program. Thus, the only one of Counsel’s ques-
tions that the government did answer was whether her clients
had been, or still were, the subject of electronic surveillance
pursuant to Title III, and the government answered that ques-
tion in the negative.
To be clear, by answering only whether Counsel’s clients
were the subject of electronic surveillance pursuant to Title
III, the government left unanswered Counsel’s claim that her
clients were subjected to electronic surveillance in violation
of Title III.8 See Black’s Law Dictionary 1272 (8th ed. 2004)
8
Besides leaving unanswered whether Appellant #10 was subjected to
surveillance in violation of Title III, the response also left unanswered the
question of whether Counsel’s clients had been subjected to electronic sur-
veillance in violation of FISA or the Fourth Amendment. Because I would
hold that the government’s response was rendered insufficient by its fail-
ure even to deny any Title III violation, I do not address whether a
response denying any Title III violation would have satisfied the govern-
ment’s § 3504(a)(1) obligations.
36 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
(defining "pursuant to" as "[i]n compliance with," "in accor-
dance with," "under," or "[a]s authorized by"). And even if
the government’s response could perhaps be read as denying
that Appellant #10 was subjected to electronic surveillance in
violation of Title III—and I believe the language of the gov-
ernment’s response and the context in which it was given pre-
clude that reading—the response certainly did not constitute
the "factual, unambiguous, [and] unequivocal" denial that 18
U.S.C.A. § 3504(a)(1) required. Apple, 915 F.2d at 911.
It bears emphasis that, far from negating Appellant #10’s
Title III claim, the fact that the claimed surveillance was not
conducted pursuant to Title III was the essence of Appellant
#10’s Title III claim. To this day, the government has never
denied that Appellant #10 was the subject of electronic sur-
veillance in violation of Title III. Nor has it ever done so indi-
rectly by, for example, representing that any interceptions
were of international or foreign communications only and
were for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence. See 18
U.S.C.A. § 2511(2)(f) (excluding from Title III’s scope "the
acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intel-
ligence information from international or foreign communica-
tions").9 Indeed, the failure of the government even to deny
intercepting Appellant #10’s domestic calls is particularly
noteworthy in light of Counsel’s suggestion in her March 16
letter that the government was "engaging in secret warrantless
surveillance of domestic communications as well" as interna-
tional ones. J.A. 89.
As I have explained, when an aggrieved party makes a cog-
nizable claim that a subpoena is fruit of a Title III violation
and demands that the government affirm or deny that Title III
9
To be clear, I do not mean to say that the government was obligated
to specifically represent that the § 2511(2)(f) exception applied if it did.
Rather, I mean only to point out that we cannot assume from the facts of
this case, Counsel’s allegations, or the government’s response that
§ 2511(2)(f) or any other Title III exception applied.
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 37
was violated, the government’s failure to do so provides just
cause for the party to refuse to comply with the subpoena. See
In re Grand Jury Matter, 906 F.2d at 91. No facts in this case
warrant divergence from this well-established rule.
The district court correctly recognized that underlying this
rule is the Supreme Court’s holding in Gelbard that evidence
that is the fruit of a Title III violation is inadmissible in a
grand jury proceeding. However, in my judgment, the district
court wrongly concluded that Gelbard’s holding did not apply
to the facts of the present case. The district court reasoned that
the Gelbard Court assumed for the purpose of its decision that
the grand jury questioning that the witnesses sought to resist
was fruit of an illegal wiretap, see id. at 46-47, but that such
an assumption was not justified in the present case in light of
the enactment of FISA and authorization by President Bush of
his secret warrantless electronic surveillance program, both of
which occurred after Gelbard was decided.
The Gelbard Court’s assumption that the grand jury ques-
tioning that the witnesses sought to resist would have been
fruit of a Title III violation was not at all dependent upon the
fact that Gelbard predated FISA and President Bush’s secret
surveillance program. Nor did it depend in any way on the
Court’s view of the likelihood that the questioning at issue
actually was fruit of an illegal interception. Rather, the Gel-
bard Court assumed the questioning was fruit of an illegal
interception simply because the narrow issue before it was
whether the witnesses would have just cause to refuse to tes-
tify if the questioning were fruit of electronic surveillance in
violation of Title III. In the present case, as in Gelbard, we
have not yet litigated the question of whether the claimed sur-
veillance violated Title III. What is important is that if the
subpoena before us were the fruit of electronic surveillance
that violated Title III, Appellant #10 would have just cause to
refuse to comply with it. See id. And, because the district
court had not yet resolved Appellant #10’s claim that it was
the subject of surveillance that violated Title III, § 3504(a)(1)
38 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
clearly obligated the government to affirm or deny that claim,
so that Appellant #10 was not forced to bear alone the very
difficult task of proving government surveillance. See United
States v. Vielghth, 502 F.2d 1257, 1259 n.4 (9th Cir. 1974)
(per curiam) ("Requiring the government to affirm or deny the
existence of illegal surveillance of witnesses imposes only a
minimal additional burden upon the government, but requir-
ing a witness to establish the existence of such surveillance
may impose a burden on the witness that he can rarely meet,
since, to be effective, electronic surveillance must be con-
cealed from its victim."). Thus, the district court erred in con-
cluding that the possibility that the government’s surveillance
was authorized by FISA or the Constitution somehow excused
the government from admitting or denying Appellant #10’s
claim of illegal surveillance.
The district court also concluded that United States v.
Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974), demonstrates that Gelbard
does not apply to the facts before us. I do not agree. In Calan-
dra, the Court held that a witness does not have the right to
refuse to answer grand jury questions on the basis that the
questions were the fruit of an unconstitutional search and sei-
zure. See Calandra, 414 U.S. at 350. The Court explained that
its holding was not in conflict with Gelbard, which held that
a grand jury witness could invoke § 2515 as a defense to a
contempt charge resulting from his refusal to answer ques-
tions that were the fruit of electronic surveillance in violation
of Title III. See id. at 355 n.11. The Court reasoned that the
Gelbard holding "rested exclusively on an interpretation of
[Title] III, which represented a congressional effort to afford
special safeguards against the unique problems posed by mis-
use of wiretapping and electronic surveillance." Id. Because
it is those very safeguards that Appellant #10 has attempted
to invoke in this case, in which it claims its communications
were intercepted in violation of Title III (among other laws),
Gelbard clearly applies.
The government offers several additional arguments that its
response satisfied its § 3504(a) obligations. First, it contends
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 39
that "Section 3504 does not apply to all electronic surveil-
lance" and, in particular, does not apply to FISA surveillance.
Brief of Appellee at 20. The government specifically asserts
that § 3504 applies only to Title III claims, not to FISA or
Constitutional claims (and thus, Gelbard does not control),
and that a grand jury witness is not entitled to notice that he
may have been overheard during the course of FISA surveil-
lance. Neither of these arguments is valid, in my view.
Regarding the government’s first argument, even assuming
that § 3504 applies to Title III claims only, Appellant #10 has
clearly claimed that its Title III rights were violated, and the
government has never denied that allegation. The presence of
this Title III claim renders irrelevant whether Appellant #10
could have utilized § 3504 had it alleged only a violation of
FISA or the Constitution. As for the government’s argument
that Appellant #10 would not have been entitled to notice
from the government that it overheard Appellant #10’s calls
under FISA, I believe that issue, like the issue of whether
§ 3504 applies to non-Title III claims, is a red herring. Deny-
ing the occurrence of any illegal electronic surveillance of
Appellant #10—or surveillance that violated Title III—would
not have required admitting that any legal surveillance, such
as that authorized by FISA, took place.
The government finally maintains that the imposition of the
fine in this case should be affirmed because Appellant #10
could not have proven the illegality of the alleged surveillance
under Title III, either because the warrantless electronic sur-
veillance program announced by the Bush Administration was
actually legal or because national security interests preclude
Appellant #10 from litigating the legality of the program. This
argument fails as well, however, for at least two reasons.
First, the process before the district court never reached the
point at which Appellant #10 might have had to prove that the
claimed surveillance violated Title III, because the govern-
ment never denied that it did. Once the government failed to
40 IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA
offer a sufficient § 3504(a)(1) response, that failure gave
Appellant #10 just cause to refuse to comply with the sub-
poena, independent of whether it could have proven that the
claimed surveillance was illegal had the government denied
any unlawful act. See In re Grand Jury Matter, 906 F.2d at
91.
Second, Appellant #10 has not alleged, and the government
has never represented, that any surveillance conducted was
pursuant to any particular surveillance program—or pursuant
to any program at all, for that matter. Thus, Appellant #10’s
ability to prove the illegality of any particular program cannot
be determinative of whether any surveillance of Appellant
#10 was illegal. Indeed, when this red herring—the legality of
any particular extra-statutory surveillance program—is
stripped from this case, what we are left with is the garden-
variety scenario of an aggrieved party claiming that its com-
munications—perhaps its domestic communications—have
been intercepted in violation of Title III, and the government
refusing to deny that claim. I therefore believe that Appellant
#10 certainly had just cause to refuse to comply with the sub-
poena, and the district court erred in holding it in contempt.
II.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, I believe that the govern-
ment failed in its duty to adequately respond to Appellant
#10’s allegation that the subpoena here was the product of
illegal government surveillance of Appellant #10. If a repre-
sentation by the government that it did not conduct surveil-
lance pursuant to Title III is deemed a sufficient response to
a claim that it conducted surveillance in violation of Title III,
then individuals will be crippled in their attempts to demon-
strate that their communications have been unlawfully inter-
cepted and § 3504 will serve no purpose. Established law
dictates that the government’s failure to offer an adequate
response constituted just cause for Appellant #10 to refuse to
comply with the subpoena, and that the district court therefore
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA 41
erred in holding Appellant #10 in contempt for refusing to
comply. On that basis I would vacate the fine imposed against
Appellant #10, and I respectfully dissent from an affirmance
of the imposition of that fine.10
10
Because Appellant #10 has already fully complied with the subpoena,
the vacatur of its fine would end its involvement in this case and require
no further consideration by this court or the district court regarding
whether the subpoena may have been the fruit of illegal electronic surveil-
lance.