Judges' differing rulings on NSA spy programme fuel debate
Constitutionality, security value of programme that 'vacuums up' metadata on private communications meet starkly different findings
A federal judge ruling that a US National Security Agency programme that collects enormous troves of phone records is legal has brought to focus an extraordinary debate among US courts and a presidential review group about how to balance security and privacy in the era of big data.
In just 11 days, two judges and the presidential panel reached the opposite of consensus on every significant question before them, including the intelligence value of the programme, the privacy interests at stake and how the US constitution figures in the analysis.
The latest decision, from Judge William Pauley in New York, could not have been more different from one issued on December 16 by Judge Richard Leon in Washington.
Leon ruled that the programme was "almost Orwellian" and probably unconstitutional.
The decision on Friday "is the exact opposite of Judge Leon's in every way, substantively and rhetorically", said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University in the US capital. "It's matter and antimatter."
The case in New York was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said it would appeal.
The next stops for the parallel cases are the appeal courts in New York and Washington. Should the split endure, the US Supreme Court is likely to step in.