Case Prompt
UConn Moot Court Tournament 2016
Alif and ACLU v. United States
In the wake of the terrorist attacks made on September 11, 2001, the United States entered into a conflict
that President George W. Bush’s administration called the “War on Terror.” On October 26, 2001, the
United States Patriot Act was passed to increase efforts to thwart terrorists in the United States and
abroad. With this act, the Bush administration was able to employ a variety of surveillance tactics in order
to gather intelligence and prevent future attacks from occurring. One of these tactics was the monitoring
of phone calls from the United States to international phone lines. The National Security Agency (NSA)
was authorized to wiretap phone calls of United States citizens without a warrant and then further
investigate citizens who they believed to be a concern or threat. The warrantless interception was
justified by the Bush administration on the grounds that future terror attacks could quickly be responded
to and potential threats both at home and abroad would be reduced. The NSA’s surveillance methods are
still being used today in the Obama administration.
On May 4, 2013, Edwin Frost, an analyst for the NSA, released thousands of classified documents to the
newspaper, The Daily Planet, regarding the NSA’s criteria for monitoring individuals. Within these
papers, it was revealed that a disproportionate percentage of individuals whose communications were
intercepted and flagged for further investigation were of Middle Eastern descent. One document
published listed 500 characteristics that the NSA used to find potential threats to national security.
Dearborn, Michigan, a town where 30% of residents speak Arabic and 42% practice Islam, was listed on
the report. Saddled with this information from Frost, The Daily Planet published an article revealing the
supposed racial profiling of citizens of Middle Eastern descent and the warrantless wiretapping employed
by the NSA, emphasizing their concerns over 4th and 5th Amendment violations.
On March 15, 2013, Muhammad Alif, a professor at Michigan State University (MSU), was detained by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at 3:30 pm. Because Alif was a resident of Dearborn, Michigan
and made six phone calls to Iraq in the month of February 2013, he was flagged by the NSA. Alif was
born and raised in Michigan but has family in Iraq. After intercepting his calls, the NSA and FBI
discovered Alif made two separate week-long trips to Iraq the month before and that he purchased a 3-D
printer shortly after his second trip. In monitoring the calls, the NSA heard Alif say, “I’m going to make a
wolf tonight, hopefully it works.” The government suspected it could have been a code word for “gun”
and thus, wanted to further investigate. The FBI received a FISA warrant after ascertaining this
information in order to search Alif’s home. A FISA warrant is issued by the United States Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court), which reviews applications for warrants against individuals
suspected of being a threat to national security by federal law enforcement agencies, mainly the NSA and
FBI.
Once the FISA warrant was obtained, the FBI raided Alif’s home and confiscated the 3-D printer. Based
on some analysis, the FBI found that the printer was activated between his two trips. Due to encryption
codes, FBI analysts were unable to recover the blueprints used on March 13th. When asked, Alif said he
used the 3-D printer for his engineering class and personal projects using computer aided design software.
The FBI further found blueprints, dated from 2010, for what appeared to be a barrel of a gun within
Alif’s home, but he claimed that he forgot what it was meant for.
The government claims Alif was detained by the FBI based on the evidence that he made several phone
calls and trips to the Middle East, along with his purchase of the 3D printer. Very few individuals
privately own 3-D printers, and a common concern with them is the ability to create weapons. The printer
has the ability to create nearly any object from any material including firearms. Therefore, the FBI and
the court which issued the FISA warrant thought there was sufficient evidence to detain Alif as a
suspected terrorist, especially after the strange phrase of “making the wolf, hopefully it works” and the
blueprint of what was suspected to be a barrel of a gun.
Following Alif’s detention, the ACLU learned about his arrest from Alif’s wife. Because of the
information released by Frost, the ACLU sought to file suit on behalf of Alif, suspecting that his detention
was based on racial profiling and illegal searches and seizures from the wiretapped interceptions. The
ACLU and Alif were granted certiorari by the Supreme Court.
Questions
● Is the federal government’s practice of intercepting telephone calls from Muhammad Alif or any
U.S. citizen a violation of the 4th Amendment’s right to be free from illegal searches and
seizures?
● Is the NSA violating the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause, through which the 14th
Amendment's equal protection guarantees are applicable to the federal government, by flagging a
disproportionate amount of people of Middle Eastern descent?
Cases:
Students may use the following cases (and no others) in their arguments.
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Katz v. United States (1967)
Ontario v. Quon (2010)
Clapper v. Amnesty International (2013)
Farm Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol (2002)
Ortega-Melendres v. Arpaio (2013)
Washington v. Davis (1976)
McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)
United States v. Armstrong (1996)
Legal Definitions:
“Intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral
communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.
Appendix I
Relevant Amendments from the Constitution of the United States:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment XIV
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.