Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Carter Page’s second amended complaint alleging unlawful electronic surveillance and information leaks by FBI officials under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Patriot Act. The appellate court held that Page’s claims were conclusively time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations, as he had actual notice of the surveillance and suspected its unlawfulness prior to the three-year limitations period expiring. While the majority found all claims barred, a partial dissent would have allowed one disclosure claim to proceed based on different accrual and pleading analyses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Page's claims under 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a)(1) for unauthorized electronic surveillance were conclusively barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
- Whether Page's claims under 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a)(2) for unlawful disclosure or use of information obtained through electronic surveillance were conclusively barred by the statute of limitations or insufficiently pleaded.
- Whether Page's claim against the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 2712 was barred because he failed to present it to the appropriate federal agency within two years after accrual.
- Whether dismissal of the appealed claims was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Holdings
- Assuming without deciding that the three-year D.C. catchall limitations period applied, Page's FISA claims accrued no later than April 2017 because he had actual or inquiry notice of the alleged unlawful surveillance and related disclosure or use.
- Page's claim that the defendants intentionally conducted unauthorized electronic surveillance was conclusively time-barred.
- Page's claim that the defendants disclosed or used information obtained through unlawful surveillance was time-barred and, in part, insufficiently pleaded.
- Page's Patriot Act claim was barred because he did not present it to the appropriate federal agency within two years after accrual.
Key quotations
“Relying on the discovery rule and our precedent, we hold that Page had actual or inquiry notice of his FISA claims for unauthorized surveillance and disclosure by April 2017.” (18)
“As a result, the statute of limitations bars Page’s claim under the Patriot Act.” (28)
“With regard to that claim, I respectfully dissent.” (38)
Factual background
Page alleged that the FBI obtained and renewed four FISA warrants authorizing electronic surveillance of him during the 2016 presidential-election investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane. He alleged that the applications contained materially false statements and omissions, including inaccuracies concerning Christopher Steele's reporting and Page's prior relationship with the CIA. Page also alleged that FBI officials leaked information concerning the surveillance to the media, causing reputational harm and economic losses. Public reporting in April 2017 disclosed that Page had been the subject of FISA surveillance, and Page thereafter publicly described the surveillance as unjustified and politically motivated.
Procedural history
Page filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in November 2020 and later filed a second amended complaint asserting claims under FISA, Bivens, the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Privacy Act, and the Patriot Act. The district court dismissed the appealed FISA and Patriot Act claims, principally for failure to state a claim and, as to certain claims, on limitations grounds. The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of the FISA surveillance claim, the FISA disclosure-or-use claim, and the Patriot Act claim, concluding that the claims were time-barred or insufficiently pleaded.