It makes no sense to read that provision back into the law. It would interfere with the PCLOB’s ability to provide the reliable, nonpartisan analysis and recommendations that are so valuable to Congress, and to the public. 8/8

In response, in 2007, Congress pulled that provision, removing the Board from the president’s supervision and establishing it as a fully independent agency. (7/8)

When Congress first created the Board in 2004, it included a provision of law that gave the president express authority to remove Board members at will. The White House made extensive edits to the Board’s first report to Congress, prompting a Board member to resign in protest. 6/8

If the president could fire PCLOB members at will, it would be harder for Congress to trust that the Board’s recommendations are rooted purely in facts and expertise, without influence from the White House. In fact, Congress learned that lesson the hard way. 5/8

The question for the court is whether the president may legally fire Board members at will. As the members of Congress argue in their brief, he can’t. In fact, Congress deliberately insulated the Board from the president to protect its independence. 4/8

Congress has enacted many of its suggested reforms into law, including shutting down the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans call records. But Congress’s ability to rely on the Board’s analysis and recommendations depends on the Board’s independence. 3/8

PCLOB plays a key role as a check on executive overreach. It’s tasked with ensuring that the government’s counterterrorism efforts don’t violate Americans’ privacy and civil liberties. It conducts deep-dive investigations of govt surveillance programs and makes recommendations for reform. 2/8

The memo deviates drastically from usual 4th Amdt standards and creates serious risks for continued abuses of power. The gov't must be held to its constitutional obligations at all times, and no less so when the language of war is being used. 9/9

The memo relies on the AEA to authorize entry w/ an ICE warrant or no warrant at all, even though the proposed entries do not clearly fit w/in any recognized exception to the warrant reqmt. But the AEA invocation does not erase 4th Amdt rights—nor could it. No law can set aside the Constitution. 8/9

In the immigration context, the 4th Amdt means ICE needs a warrant from a federal judge or an exception to that requirement to enter a home. Critically, an administrative arrest warrant issued by ICE itself does not authorize ICE to enter homes. 7/9

The 4th Amdt applies regardless of citizenship or what a person is accused of.
DOJ has acknowledged the 4th Amdt applies even to counterterrorism operations in the US (subject to the traditional exception to the warrant requirement for true emergencies). 6/9 www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...

Constitutional protections like the 4th Amdt ensure the gov't acts against the right people for the right reasons. When officers ignore the Constitution, they risk entering the wrong homes and/or arresting and deporting the wrong people - maybe even American citizens. 5/9