Amicus Tracker
Privacy Cases with Amicus Opportunities
EPIC's Amicus Tracker is a public resource designed to highlight active privacy, civil liberties, and technology cases in federal appellate and state supreme courts. The list is updated regularly and only includes cases with upcoming briefing schedules. If we’ve missed a case, or if you spot an error, please contact us at amicus.tracker [at] epic [dot] org. Last updated: November 29, 2018.
| Case | Court | Description | Keywords | Docket No. | Date Appeal Docketed | Relevant EPIC Amicus Briefs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dep’t of Commerce v. New York | U.S. Supreme Court | Plaintiffs in New York v. Dep't of Commerce seek to depose Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross on his intent in adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census. Plaintiffs argue that the reason stated in the administrative record for the addition is mere pretense, and that Secretary Ross had a discriminatory intent in adding the question. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Plaintiffs had shown the "exceptional circumstances" necessary to depose a high-ranking government official. Defendants filed a petition for mandamus in the Second Circuit, which was denied. Defendants then filed a petition for mandamus in the Supreme Court, which converted the petition to one for certiorari and granted it. | Census Privacy | 18-557 | 11/16/18 | EPIC Amicus Briefs on Census Privacy |
| PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic | U.S. Supreme Court | Respondent Carlton & Harris Chiropractic received an unsolicited fax from Petitioner PDR Network offering a copy of the "Physicians Desk Reference," a free guide which catalogues pharmaceuticals from companies that pay PDR a fee for placement. PDR moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, claiming that the fax was not an "unsolicited advertisement" under the plain language of the TCPA. Carlton & Harris argued that this fax was within the TCPA's definition of "unsolicited advertisement" as interpreted by a 2006 FCC rule, and the Hobbes Act required the district court to apply this interpretation. The District Court granted the motion. The court engaged in a Chevron analysis and held that the statutory definition of "unsolicited advertisement" was sufficiently clear, and thus the court was not required to defer to the FCC rule. Carlton & Harris appealed. The Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that the Hobbes Act requires a district court to apply FCC interpretations of the TCPA, and that a Chevron analysis was inappropriate. PDR filed a petition for cert, which was granted on November 13, 2018." | Telephone Consumer Protection Act | 17-1705 | 11/13/18 | EPIC Amicus Briefs on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act |
| United States v. Jason Wayne Irving | U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit | Defendant is a registered sex offender. A police officer claimed to have probable cause that Defendant was in violation of the Kansas Offender Registry Act, alleging that he was walking with a young juvenile "at odd hours of the night." Kansas also requires sex offenders to provide any online identities for registration. Defendant did not do this. The officer received a warrant for Defendant's Facebook account information. Based on communications with suspected minors and observation of suspected child pornography in the Facebook data, another officer obtained a second warrant to search Defendant's house. The Defendant was then indicted, and moved to suppress the evidence obtained through both warrants. The Government argued that Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because (1) he was an unauthorized user of Facebook, (2) much of his account was public, and (3) any expectation of privacy was thwarted by Facebook's Terms of Service ("TOS") and notification of its intention to provide information to law enforcement. The Court did not agree. The Government has now appealed to the Tenth Circuit. | Fourth Amendment | 18-3208 | 10/2/18 | EPIC Amicus Briefs on the Fourth Amendment |
| Gallagly v. Sun Times Media | U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit | The Sun-Times published a series of investigative reports on the Chicago PD's failure to bring charges against Chicago mayor Richard Daley's nephew, R.J. Vanecko, for a homocide. One article described how the lineup contained only men who closely resembled Vanecko. It included a photo of the lineup alongside a graphic identifying the five officers by name and birthdate, as well as height, weight, hair color, and eye color. The Sun-Times obtained this information from the Secretary of State's office, which, in turn, had obtained it from DMV records. However, the Sun-Times did not know that the information had come from DMV records. The District Court found that the Sun-Times violated the DPPA in disclosing the officer's personal information, applying intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment. The District Court also originally applied intermediate scrutiny to the obtainment claim, and found for the Sun-Times. The court did not reward any damages. Both parties sought reconsideration of the District Court's judgment. The District Court determined that the obtainment claim only warranted rational basis, and not heightened, scrutiny. In light of this change, the District Court found for Plaintiffs on both the obtainment and disclosure claims. It again awarded no damages. The Sun-Times appeals that order. The Court of Appeals requested, sua sponte, briefing on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. | Drivers Privacy Protection Act, First Amendment | 18-3101 | 10/1/18 | EPIC Amicus Briefs on the First Amendment |
| Tanner Kresal v. SECURA Insurance Holdings | U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit | In this civil action, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, claims that defendants SECURA insurance company violated the DPPA. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants publicly disclosed Kresal's driver's license number on forms for a proposed bench warrant and certificate judgment submitted to the Circuit Court for Wisconsin. Before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), asserting that plaintiff failed to allege (1) the information was obtained from a "motor vehicle record;" and (2) the claimed conduct falls outside uses epxressly permitted by the DPPA. The defendants motion was ultimately granted. | Drivers Privacy Protection Act | 18-2501 | 7/11/18 | EPIC Amicus Briefs on the Drivers Privacy Protection Act |
| Nimesh Patel v. Facebook | U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit | This case concerns whether Facebook’s facial recognition and tagging features violates Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case was originally scheduled for trial on July 9, 2018. However, the Ninth Circuit granted Facebook’s emergency motion to stay which resulted in the trial date being vacated. The Ninth Circuit also granted Facebook’s petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) challenging the district court’s April 16, 2018 class certification order. Facebook’s 23(f) petition argues that the district court misinterpreted the language of BIPA’s damages provision when it found that a violation of the statute was sufficient to prove a person was “aggrieved” by that violation. According to Facebook, relying on Six Flags v. Rosenbach, 2017 IL app (2d) 170317 (Ill. App. Ct., Dec. 21, 2017), one must prove more than a technical violation of BIPA to be “aggrieved.” In other words, one must prove some consequential harm to satisfy the statute. The Ninth Circuit is now reviewing the district court’s class certification order and its interpretation of BIPA’s “aggrieved” language. | BIPA, consumer privacy | 18-15982 | 5/30/18 | EPIC Amicus Briefs on Consumer Privacy |
| Brickman v. Facebook | U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit | Facebook sent Plaintiff several text message reminders about friends' birthdays. Defendant Facebook moved to dismiss, arguing that Facebook did not use an autodialer, Plaintiff consented to the texts, and TCPA is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The District Court denied the motion but certified for immediate appeal the questions of (1) the defition of autodialer and (2) whether TCPA is constitutional. The Ninth Circuit stayed consideration of the petition to appeal pending decisions in ACA Int'l and Marks. With those decisions now rendered, Facebook has filed a renewed petition to appeal. Plaintiff and the US government, which has intervened to defend the constitutionality of the TCPA, oppose lifting the stay in light of pending regulatory proceedings to replace the 2015 FCC order that was struck down in ACA Int'l. | Telephone Consumer Protection Act | 17-80080 | 5/8/17 | EPIC Amicus Briefs on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act |
Although EPIC strives to keep this page accurate and up-to-date, anyone wishing to file an amicus brief in one of these cases should independently review the docket and relevant filings. The EPIC Tracker is for informational purposes only. The list is not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice.
