The Subpoena Abuse Prevention Act Aims to Shield the First Amendment from “Administrative Subpoenas”

​The First Amendment protects far more than freedom of the press. It protects the right of Americans to speak, associate, worship, petition the government, and express political views without fear that the government is secretly monitoring their activities.

Yet those freedoms are increasingly threatened by the government's growing reliance on administrative subpoenas – demands for records issued by executive branch agencies without prior approval from a judge.

Unlike traditional warrants, administrative subpoenas often allow agencies to obtain sensitive information without demonstrating probable cause or convincing a court that the request is justified. As Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) put it:

“Americans’ constitutional rights should not disappear just because they made a phone call or sent a text. Yet today, federal agencies can secretly demand your phone records and personal data from tech companies as often as they want without ever stepping inside a courtroom.”

The danger is not limited to privacy. It strikes at the heart of First Amendment freedoms.

Consider what modern communications records can reveal. Phone logs, text messages, email metadata, web browsing records, social media activity, and app usage can expose a person's political affiliations, religious beliefs, advocacy activities, friendships, and associations. Such records can reveal who attends a protest, communicates with a political campaign, seeks counseling from a religious leader, participates in a grassroots movement, or belongs to an unpopular organization.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that compelled disclosure of associations can chill free expression. Americans are less likely to speak freely, join controversial causes, or engage in political activism if they believe the government can secretly assemble a detailed picture of their activities without meaningful judicial oversight.

The risks are especially acute in an era when so much speech occurs through digital communications. A subpoena directed at a technology company can reveal not only what people say, but also who they communicate with, what they read, what videos they watch, and what causes they support.

Journalists are not the primary victims of this authority, but their experience illustrates how easily government access to records can chill protected expression.

Recent controversies involving government efforts to obtain reporters' records – including, most recently, subpoenas directed at reporters for The Wall Street Journal – have highlighted how authorities can expose confidential sources and chill investigative reporting. The Obama administration and the current Trump administration have used subpoenas issued by courts or grand juries to probe the notes and phone logs of reporters.

Are administrative subpoenas also being used to investigate journalists? Perhaps the better question is: How would we ever know?

Bob Goodlatte, former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a Senior Policy Advisor to Protect The 1st, aptly described the constitutional problem:

“The very term ‘administrative subpoena’ is an oxymoron that is offensive to the Fourth Amendment. It avoids judicial oversight and gives the executive branch the ability to make legitimate-sounding demands to inspect our houses, papers, effects, and data, when it is in fact just illicit government overreach.”

That is why Protect The 1st endorses the bipartisan Subpoena Abuse Prevention Act, sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), along with a bipartisan group of House members.

The legislation would require the government to obtain judicial approval before accessing phone records, require officials to certify under penalty of perjury that subpoenas are not being used to monitor protected speech, and prohibit bulk collection requests, such as demands for records identifying everyone who watched a particular video, visited a website, attended an online event, or downloaded a specific app.

These reforms would restore an essential constitutional safeguard – independent judicial review.

The Founders understood that freedom of speech, religion, the press, and association cannot survive if government officials possess unchecked power to identify critics, monitor dissenters, and map private networks of communication.
​
In an age when our political, personal, and religious lives increasingly exist in digital form, Congress should ensure that constitutional rights do not disappear whenever an agency decides to issue a subpoena.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS