Last Friday plaintiffs (appellees/cross-appellants) in Klayman v. Obama filed their reply to the government's response and reply brief. The plaintiffs' new 38-page filing largely reiterates arguments from their August 13, 2014 brief---for example, contending again that Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) changes the precedential effect of Smith v. Maryland: "The Supreme Court’s modern up-to-date view of today’s cellular phones has surely impacted the extent that the Government Defendants can lawfully intrude upon citizens’ rights. In fact, Riley in the context of this case, eliminates Smith. This is not a pen register, this is metadata; it is every aspect of our lives."
The summary opens:
The Government Defendants, in their Response and Reply Brief, completely sidestep the crucial constitutional issues regarding the First and Fifth Amendments. This Court must decide these issues involving the First and Fifth Amendments because they are just as important as Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim, in which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“District Court”) found that Plaintiffs had standing to bring. The significance of metadata in addition to the district court’s ruling in the present case establishes standing to challenge the Section 215 illegal government surveillance of bulk telephony metadata. Further, the Government Defendants distort the significance of the Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision in Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014), as Riley is controlling and Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) is inapplicable under the circumstances in the present case. Finally, the government defendants cannot establish a “special need” to warrant the use of the Section 215 illegal government surveillance of bulk telephony metadata.