Just days after upholding the federal robocall ban against a First Amendment challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide the scope of the ban in a new case, Duguid v. Facebook. Following the D.C. Circuit’s invalidation of the FCC’s definition of an “autodialer”—the technology companies use to automatically dial vast numbers of consumers— federal appeals courts have split on how to interpret the term. Telemarketers argue that an autodialer must generate random or sequential numbers, while consumers and consumer groups like EPIC maintain that the law bans systems that automatically call numbers from lists. In Gadelhak v. AT&T, EPIC argued that adopting the telemarketers’ autodialer definition “would undermine the law's effectiveness by inviting easy circumvention and rendering the restriction obsolete.” EPIC routinely files amicus briefs in cases on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
EPIC has joined a group of organizations across the political spectrum—EFF, Americans for Prosperity, the Brennan Center, FreedomWorks, and TechFreedom—to urge a federal appeals court to revive a challenge to an NSA surveillance program. A lower court judge in the case, Wikimedia v. NSA, found that Wikimedia could not demonstrate that its communications had actually been intercepted under the Upstream surveillance program—and that further litigation was barred for national security reasons. The amicus brief argues that “it is critical that those directly affected by mass foreign intelligence surveillance be able to obtain judicial review” because “FISA is broken.” EPIC has participated as amicus in several previous cases challenging FISA surveillance, including Smith v. Obama and Clapper v. Amnesty International. EPIC also brought the first challenge to the NSA telephone records surveillance program, In re EPIC, in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a New York grand jury can obtain President Trump’s tax returns from the President’s accounting firm. In its decision from Trump v. Vance, the Court rejected the President's attempt to block the grand jury's subpoena. "Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding," the Court wrote. "We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need." EPIC filed an amicus brief in the case supporting disclosure. EPIC explained that President Trump broke with 40 years of precedent by concealing his tax records, even as he sought to collect sensitive voter and citizenship data from the public. "This is inverted liberty: privacy for the President and compelled disclosure of personal data for the public," EPIC argued. "That is antithetical to the structure and practice of modern democracies which safeguard the privacy of citizens and impose transparency obligations on political leaders, most notably the President." EPIC previously sought public release of President Trump's tax returns in EPIC v. IRS, arguing that disclosure was necessary to correct numerous factual misstatements made by the President. In EPIC v. IRS II, EPIC is seeking "offers-in-compromise" and related tax records of President Trump and his businesses.
