The Editorial Board applauds a verdict reached Sept. 26 when a district judge from Oregon, Ann Aiken, ruled that two provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act were unconstitutional. Aiken argued that the two provisions, which amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, dismissed the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for probable cause and allowed for unlawful searches and seizures. The case under discussion was a common one, and the prosecutor, Brandon Mayfield, was one of many whom the government has mistreated using the USA PATRIOT Act. Mayfield brought the case to court after the FBI erroneously arrested and jailed him for two weeks in 2004 for suspected ties to the train bombings in Madrid, Spain.

Such privacy issues are not unrelated to Stanford and the world of academia. In the spring of 2004, Professor Steven Kurtz of the State University of New York (SUNY), Buffalo, woke up to find his wife dead. When the paramedics arrived, they noticed that Kurtz — who was working on a bio-art project at the time — was in possession of technical equipment that would normally be found in a laboratory setting. Under absurd provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, Kurtz was submitted to 22 hours of non-Mirandized questioning. Moreover, Kurtz was not allowed to return to his house to recover his wife’s body until the Commissioner of Public Health for New York State had investigated samples of his project — a full week later.

Aiken’s decision against the controversial legislation came in a timely manner: it was the second major blow to the USA PATRIOT Act from the U.S. District Court level in less than a month. Only three weeks earlier, New York’s district judge Victor Marrero deemed a different provision unconstitutional. He stated that a section of the USA PATRIOT Act, which authorized the issue of a National Security Letter subpoena, “offends the fundamental constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.” Writing on the USA PATRIOT Act’s provision, Marrero noted that the process was “constitutionally deficient under the First Amendment in several respects.” The first court denouncement of the USA PATRIOT Act occurred in January 2004, when U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that the act’s ban on “expert advice or assistance” was in violation of both the First and the Fifth Amendments. Since that time, the executive branch’s act has been under constant but calm fire from both the judicial and legislative branches of government. Rulings, amendments and calls for repeal from both branches have had little effect.

The USA PATRIOT Act was written in the wake of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks, in an attempt to fight terror and increase foreign intelligence accessibility for law enforcement agencies. However, the act fails at successfully fulfilling its purpose; as Aiken wrote, “a difficult balance must be struck in a manner that preserves the peace and security of our nation while at the same time preserving the constitutional rights and civil liberties of all Americans.” Although Aiken agreed that the goal had been “to break down barriers between criminal law enforcement and intelligence gathering,” she emphasized the result was actually a ticket for the government to ignore the Constitution’s requirement for probable clause.

The judges who have ruled against the USA PATRIOT Act over the past three years should be praised, as should the Congressmen and Senators who have written the under-publicized bills condemning or repealing parts of the act. These actions, however, are only stepping stones to a final and necessary achievement. The government as a whole, including the executive branch, must decide against the underlying tenants of the USA PATRIOT Act. Never should absolute power be given to any part of the government. The liberties of American citizens should never be sacrificed, regardless of how well-intentioned the rationale.