The first-ever terror suspect who found out evidence gathered by the NSA was used to build the case against him is challenging the surveillance program's constitutionality. This challenge is one of the first of its kind and the case could end up being decided in the Supreme Court.
Jamshid Muhtorov, a Colorado resident originally from Uzbekistan, filed a motion in a federal court in Denver on Wednesday. His lawyers argue that the evidence gathered through a warrantless NSA surveillance program violates his constitutional rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful search and seizure.
See also: Intelligence Chief: Snowden and 'Accomplices' Should Return 'Stolen' NSA Documents
"The fruits of the government’s surveillance of Mr. Muhtorov must be suppressed because the statute that authorized the surveillance is unconstitutional," the motion argues.
Muhtorov was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare Airport two years ago, when he was about to board a flight that would have taken him to Turkey. The feds accused him of planning to travel to Uzbekistan with the intention of joining a local Islamist terror group called Islamic Jihad Union. He is charged with providing material support to the group.
In November of last year, federal prosecutors admitted that part of the case against him was based on NSA surveillance stemming from the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The law, which essentially legalized a program started under the Bush administration, gave the NSA authority to gather information on U.S. phone and Internet providers without a warrant when the target of the surveillance is believed to be outside of the U.S.
The admission came after a policy change, the Obama administration had never admitted before that a terror suspect was the target of warrantless surveillance. The actual evidence in question has not been disclosed.
This is not the first time the constitutionality of the NSA program in question is challenged.
Just last year, the Supreme court rejected a lawsuit brought forth by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), human rights groups and a few journalists on the basis that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that they were targets of the surveillance program they were challenging. This shouldn't happen again, according to the ACLU.
"For five years the government insulated this statute from judicial review by concealing from criminal defendants how the evidence against them was obtained," Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU’s Colorado chapter, told Wired. "But the government will not be able to shield the statute from review in this case."
Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.