Did you know your federal tax dollars could soon be used to help construct, acquire or rebuild houses of worship overseas? The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the government agency primarily responsible for distributing foreign aid, has proposed a new rule that, if adopted, would allow federal funds to do just that.

Of course this deeply flawed proposal is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the federal government from using tax dollars to construct or maintain buildings devoted to religious instruction or worship.

Current USAID regulations prohibit funds from being "used for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of structures to the extent that they are used for inherently religious activities." The regulations explain that "[s]anctuaries, chapels, and other rooms . . . [used as a] principal place of worship" are "ineligible for USAID-funded improvements." The Bush administration, like the Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Reagan administrations before, recognized that the Constitution does not permit taxpayer dollars to be used to build houses of worship.

Now, USAID wants to ignore the Constitution and allow U.S. taxpayer funds to be used to construct churches, mosques, or temples. This is very disappointing, especially considering that President Obama recently signed an executive order to "promote compliance with constitutional and other applicable legal principles" in the government's relationship with faith-based organizations.

Because this proposal does not meet constitutional muster, yesterday, the ACLU submitted comments to USAID urging the agency not to adopt the proposal.

President Obama promised to change the way faith-based groups work with the government. This USAID proposed rule conflicts with the president's own directive and is a step in the wrong direction.

(Originally posted on the Blog of Rights.)

Later this month, three of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire: Section 215 orders; the roving "John Doe" wiretap provision; and the "lone wolf" provision. Rep. James Sensenbrenner has just introduced H.R. 1800, a bill that would reauthorize roving "John Doe" wiretaps and 215 orders for an incredible six years, and would make the unused "lone wolf" provision permanent! These three provisions are extremely troubling, as they are ripe for abuses such as surveillance of innocent people, and racial and religious profiling.

If this bill passes, it would mean that until 2017, the government would have nearly unchecked authority and be subject to little congressional oversight for issuing 215 orders that allow the government to demand "any tangible thing" during an investigation, including credit reports, medical records, business records and even library records — all without any suspicion of wrongdoing. The government would have the same unchecked authority to place roving wiretaps on essentially any phone line, without getting a warrant for a specific, identified individual first.

Rep. Sensenbrenner's bill would also permanently reauthorize the "lone wolf" provision, which allows the government to conduct surveillance on a non-U.S. person, even where that person has no connection to a terrorist organization. The proposed bill would preclude any real congressional oversight of the government's use of this authority, and shielding the government from accountability. This provision has proven to be an unnecessary grant of power, as it hasn't been used a single time since it was passed into law seven years ago.

Rep. Sensenbrenner's repeated claims that there have been no abuses of Patriot Act are misleading and miss the point of what an "abuse" is. Despite the fact that it is almost impossible to identify individual victims of Patriot Act abuses because these surveillance programs are conducted in secret, several reports have revealed rampant abuse by the FBI, and the courts have even ruled some sections of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. But even more importantly, every time the government spies on a person who isn't suspected of doing anything wrong, it violates the Fourth Amendment, and that is without a doubt, an "abuse." H.R. 1800 authorizes the government to continue those abuses for years to come.

In the 10 years since Congress passed the Patriot Act, we have seen reports of continuous abuses of power. These authorities comprehensively undermine one of the bedrocks of our democracy — the right to be free from government surveillance. Despite this, Rep. Sensenbrenner seeks to reauthorize the Patriot Act without amendment and punt further oversight activities a full six years down the road. H.R. 1800 is nothing more than yet another affront to our right to privacy.

With these three provisions set to expire at the end of the month, now is the time to demand more oversight from Congress on all Patriot Act authorities, not less, and to either amend these provisions or allow them to expire. Congress is holding a hearing on the Patriot Act on Wednesday, and considering H.R. 1800 on Thursday. Take action and demand reform now!

(Originally posted on the Blog of Rights.)

Often when the government tries to suppress information about its surveillance programs, it cites national-security concerns. But not always.

In 2008, a few years after the Bush administration's warrantless-wiretapping program was revealed for the first time by the New York Times, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act. That act authorizes the government to engage in dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications without meaningful oversight. As we've explained before (including in our lawsuit challenging the statute), the FISA Amendments Act is unconstitutional.

In 2009, we also filed a Freedom of Information Act request to learn more about the government's interpretation and implementation of the FISA Amendments Act. Last November, the government released a few hundred pages of heavily redacted documents. Though redacted, the documents confirmed that the government had interpreted the statute as broadly as we had feared and even that the government had repeatedly violated the few limitations that the statute actually imposed.

Two weeks ago, as part of our FOIA lawsuit over those documents, the government gave us several declarations attempting to justify the redaction of the documents. We've been combing through the documents and recently came across this unexpectedly honest explanation from the FBI of why the government doesn't want us to know which "electronic communication service providers" participate in its dragnet surveillance program. On page 32:



There you have it. The government doesn't want you to know whether your internet or phone company is cooperating with its dragnet surveillance program because you might get upset and file lawsuits asserting your constitutional rights. Would it be such a bad thing if a court were to consider the constitutionality of the most sweeping surveillance program ever enacted by Congress?

(Originally posted on the Blog of Rights.)