Full opinion text
BATCHELDER, J., delivered the judgment of the court. GIBBONS, J. (pp. 688-93), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment only. GILMAN, J. (pp. 693-720), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. OPINION ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. The United States National Security Agency (“NSA”) appeals from the decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan that granted summary judgment against the NSA and imposed a permanent injunction. The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union, and they cross-appeal. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims, we must vacate the district court’s order and remand for dismissal of the entire action. I. Sometime after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush authorized the NSA to begin a counter-terrorism operation that has come to be known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program (“TSP”). Although the specifics remain undisclosed, it has been publicly acknowledged that the TSP includes the interception (i.e., wiretapping), without warrants, of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has “a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qae-da, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.” See Press Briefing by Att’y Gen. Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Dir. for Nat’l Intelligence (Dec. 19, 2005), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/ 2005/12/print/20051219-l.html (last visited July 2, 2007). The plaintiffs in this action include journalists, academics, and lawyers who regularly communicate with individuals located overseas, who the plaintiffs believe are the types of people the NSA suspects of being al Qaeda terrorists, affiliates, or supporters, and are therefore likely to be monitored under the TSP. From this suspicion, and the limited factual foundation in this case, the plaintiffs allege that they have a “well founded belief’ that their communications are being tapped. According to the plaintiffs, the NSA’s operation of the TSP — and the possibility of warrantless surveillance — subjects them to conditions that constitute an irreparable harm. The plaintiffs filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking a permanent injunction against the NSA’s continuation of the TSP and a declaration that two particular aspects of the TSP — warrantless •wiretapping and data mining — violate the First and Fourth Amendments, the Separation of Powers Doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (“Title III”), and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”). Both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court dismissed the data mining aspect of the plaintiffs’ claim, but granted judgment to the plaintiffs regarding the warrantless wiretapping. See ACLU v. NSA 438 F.Supp.2d 754, 782 (E.D.Mich.2006). The NSA had invoked the State Secrets Doctrine to bar the discovery or admission of evidence that would “expose [confidential] matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.” See United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10, 73 S.Ct. 528, 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953). The NSA argued that, without the privileged information, none of the named plaintiffs could establish standing. The district court applied the state secrets privilege, but rejected the NSA’s argument, holding instead that three publicly acknowledged facts about the TSP — (1) it eavesdrops, (2) without warrants, (3) on international telephone and email communications in which at least one of the parties is a suspected al Qaeda affiliate — were sufficient to establish standing. Moreover, the district court found these three facts sufficient to grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the merits of their claims, resulting in a declaratory judgment and the imposition of an injunction. These three facts constitute all the evidence in the record relating to the NSA’s conduct under the TSP. In deciding the merits, the district court construed the Fourth Amendment as an absolute rule that “requires prior warrants for any reasonable search,” ACLU v. NSA 438 F.Supp.2d at 775, and announced that “searches conducted without prior approval by a judge or magistrate were per se unreasonable,” id. at 771. Having found that the NSA was operating without warrants, the district court concluded without further explanation that President Bush had “undisputedly violated the Fourth [Amendment] ... and accordingly ha[d] violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.” Id. at 776. Proceeding from this conclusion, the court deemed the TSP unconstitutional and issued an order enjoining its further operation entirely: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants [i.e., NSA], its agents, employees, representatives, and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation with Defendants, are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (hereinafter ‘TSP’) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter ‘FISA’) and Title III; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that the TSP violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III[.] ACLUv. NSA E.D. Mich. Dist. Court, No. 2:06-CV-10204, “Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order” (Aug. 17, 2006). The NSA moved for a stay of the injunction pending appeal, which the district court denied. Meanwhile, the NSA appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the State Secrets Doctrine prevented adjudication on the merits. This court stayed the injunction pending the outcome of this appeal. See ACLU v. NSA 467 F.3d 590, 591 (6th Cir.2006). II. This appeal presents a number of serious issues, none of which can be addressed until a determination is made that these plaintiffs have standing to litigate them. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env% 523 U.S. 83, 101, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (stating that there is no “doctrine of hypothetical jurisdiction”). “Every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review, even [if] the parties are prepared to concede it.... When the lower federal court lacks jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction on appeal, not of the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit.” Id. at 95, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (quotation marks, citations, and edits omitted). Standing is an aspect of justiciability, Worth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975), and “a plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press,” Daimler-Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S.-, 126 5.Ct. 1854, 1867, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006); accord Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Mich. Gaming Control Bd., 172 F.3d 397, 407 (6th Cir.1999) (requiring proof of standing for each individual claim). “[T]he standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) (emphasis added). The “particular plaintiffs” to this action are a diverse group of associations and individuals, and it would require a rigorous undertaking to assure that each has standing to litigate. However, for purposes of the asserted declaratory judgment — though not necessarily for the requested injunction — it is only necessary that one plaintiff has standing. See Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 721, 106 S.Ct. 3181, 92 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986) (deciding a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute because at least one plaintiff had standing). The injunction in this case is predicated on the declaratory judgment (i.e., a determination that the NSA’s conduct is unlawful), so it follows that if the plaintiffs lack standing to litigate their declaratory judgment claim, they must also lack standing to pursue an injunction. The question is whether any plaintiff has standing to litigate the declaratory judgment claim. As for the “particular claims,” the plaintiffs have asserted six separate claims or causes of action — three constitutional (First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Separation of Powers) and three statutory (APA, Title III, and FISA) — and the plaintiffs must establish that at least one plaintiff has standing for each. See Bowsher, 478 U.S. at 721, 106 S.Ct. 3181; Cuno, 126 S.Ct. at 1867. Because a cause of action is intertwined with an injury, the injuries being alleged must be described as precisely and unambiguously as possible. A particularized analysis is therefore necessary. The conduct giving rise to the alleged injuries is undisputed: the NSA (1) eavesdrops, (2) without warrants, (3) on international telephone and email communications in which at least one of the parties is reasonably suspected of al Qaeda ties. The plaintiffs’ objection to this conduct is also undisputed, and they demand that the NSA discontinue it. The plaintiffs do not contend — nor could they — that the mere practice of wiretapping (i.e., eavesdropping) is, by itself, unconstitutional, illegal, or even improper. Rather, the plaintiffs object to the NSA’s eavesdropping without warrants, specifically FISA warrants with their associated limitations and minimization requirements. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804-06. According to the plaintiffs, it is the absence of these warrants that renders the NSA’s conduct illegal and unconstitutional. But the plaintiffs do not — and because of the State Secrets Doctrine cannot — produce any evidence that any of their own communications have ever been intercepted by the NSA, under the TSP, or without warrants. Instead, they assert a mere belief, which they contend is reasonable and which they label a “well founded belief,” that: their overseas contacts are the types of people targeted by the NSA; the plaintiffs are consequently subjected to the NSA’s eavesdropping; the eavesdropping leads the NSA to discover (and possibly disclose) private or privileged information; and the mere possibility of such discovery (or disclosure) has injured them in three particular ways. Notably, the plaintiffs do not allege as injury that they personally, either as individuals or associations, anticipate or fear any form of direct reprisal by the government (e.g., the NSA, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, etc.), such as criminal prosecution, deportation, administrative inquiry, civil litigation, or even public exposure. The injuries that these plaintiffs allege are not so direct; they are more amorphous and necessitate a pointed description. The plaintiffs’ primary alleged injury— the first of three — is their inability to communicate with their overseas contacts by telephone or email due to their self-governing ethical obligations. Under this claim, the immediate injury results directly from the plaintiffs’ own actions and decisions, based on (1) their subjective belief that the NSA might be intercepting their communications, and (2) the ethical requirements governing such circumstances, as dictated by their respective professional organizations or affiliations. Relying on the district court’s three facts, the plaintiffs allege their “well founded belief’ that the NSA is intercepting their communications with overseas contacts, to the perceived detriment of those overseas contacts. The plaintiffs explain that they have an ethical duty to keep their communications confidential, which, under the circumstances, requires that they refrain from communicating with the overseas contacts by telephone or email, lest they violate that duty. The possibility that private communications may be revealed burdens the plaintiffs’ pursuit of their chosen professions or organizational objectives — i.e., in order to comply with their ethical duties, the plaintiffs must refrain from communicating by telephone or email, and are instead required either to travel overseas to meet with these contacts in person or else refrain from communicating with them altogether. The injury manifests itself in both a quantifiable way (as the added time and expense of traveling overseas) and a non-quantifiable way (as the incomplete or substandard performance of their professional responsibilities and obligations). The plaintiffs alleged this injury in their complaint and again on appeal, even though it went unaddressed by the district court. The second alleged injury — and the only one expressly addressed by the district court — is the “chilling effect” on the overseas contacts’ willingness to communicate with the plaintiffs by telephone or email. Under this claim, the immediate injury results directly from the actions of the overseas contacts who, the plaintiffs contend, fear that the NSA’s discovery of otherwise private or privileged information (being communicated by telephone or email) will lead to some direct reprisal by the United States government, their own governments, or others. This fear causes the overseas contacts to refuse to communicate with the plaintiffs by telephone or email, and this refusal to communicate burdens the plaintiffs in the performance of their jobs or other lawful objectives, because, in order to pursue their chosen professions or organizational objectives, the plaintiffs must travel overseas to meet with these contacts in person. This injury manifests itself as both an added expense and an added burden. The plaintiffs’ third alleged injury is the NSA’s violation of their legitimate expectation of privacy in their overseas telephone and email communications. Under this claim, the immediate injury comes directly from the actions of the NSA. The plaintiffs assert that the Fourth Amendment, Title III, and FISA limit the occasions and circumstances in which, and the manner by which, the government can lawfully intercept overseas electronic communications, giving rise to a legitimate expectation that their overseas communications will be intercepted only in accordance with these limits. The plaintiffs conclude that, because the NSA has conducted foreign electronic surveillance without obtaining FISA warrants (and presumably, without strict adherence to FISA’s minimization requirements), the NSA has breached their legitimate expectation of privacy, thereby causing them injury. The plaintiffs alleged a violation of their privacy rights in their complaint, but the district court did not mention it and they have not pressed it on appeal. This third kind of injury, unlike the other two, is direct and personal; under this theory, the NSA has directly invaded the plaintiffs’ interest and proof of such invasion is all that is necessary to establish standing. If, for instance, a plaintiff could demonstrate that her privacy had actually been breached (i.e., that her communications had actually been wiretapped), then she would have standing to assert a Fourth Amendment cause of action for breach of privacy. In the present case, the plaintiffs concede that there is no single plaintiff who can show that he or she has actually been wiretapped. Moreover, due to the State Secrets Doctrine, the proof needed either to make or negate such a showing is privileged, and therefore withheld from discovery or disclosure. See Tenenbaum v. Simonini, 372 F.3d 776, 777 (6th Cir.2004) (upholding dismissal because the defendants “cannot defend their conduct ... without revealing the privileged information [so] the state secrets doctrine thus deprives [the defendants of a valid defense to the [plaintiffls’ claims”). This injury is not concrete or imminent under these circumstances, and this opinion focuses on the plaintiffs’ two other alleged injuries. One other issue demands attention, namely, that the plaintiffs’ failure to subject themselves to actual harm does not, by itself, prevent a finding that they have standing — specifically, it does not deprive them of the right to seek declaratory judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (empowering courts to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought”). Implicit in each of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries is the underlying possibility — which the plaintiffs label a “well founded belief’ and seek to treat as a probability or even a certainty — that the NSA is presently intercepting, or will eventually intercept, communications to or from one or more of these particular plaintiffs, and that such interception would be detrimental to the plaintiffs’ clients, sources, or overseas contacts. This is the premise upon which the plaintiffs’ entire theory is built. But even though the plaintiffs’ beliefs — based on their superior knowledge of their contacts’ activities — may be reasonable, the alternative possibility remains that the NSA might not be intercepting, and might never actually intercept, any communication by any of the plaintiffs named in this lawsuit. A plaintiffs refusal to engage in potentially harmful activities is the typical substance of a declaratory judgment action and does not, by itself, preclude a finding that the plaintiff has standing. See Med-Immune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. •-, 127 S.Ct. 764, 772-73, 166 L.Ed.2d 604 (2007). But it is important to distinguish the two harms that surround a declaratory judgment action. The anticipated harm that causes one to refrain from the activities may satisfy the “injury-in-fact” element of standing if it is sufficiently imminent and concrete. For reasons that will be made clear in the analysis, the other harm — the harm that results from refraining from the potentially harmful activities — is another matter. In the present case, the plaintiffs anticipate that the NSA’s interception of telephone and email communications might be detrimental to their overseas contacts, and this perceived harm causes the plaintiffs to refrain from that communication (i.e., potentially harmful activity). Because there is no evidence that any plaintiffs communications have ever been intercepted, and the state secrets privilege prevents discovery of such evidence, see Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 10, 73 S.Ct. 528, there is no proof that interception would be detrimental to the plaintiffs’ contacts, and the anticipated harm is neither imminent nor concrete — it is hypothetical, conjectural, or speculative. Therefore, this harm cannot satisfy the “injury in fact” requirement of standing. Because the plaintiffs cannot avoid this shortcoming, they do not propose this harm — the harm that causes their refusal to communicate — as an “injury” that warrants redress. Instead, they propose the injuries that result from their refusal to communicate and those injuries do appear imminent and concrete. Thus, in crafting their declaratory judgment action, the plaintiffs have attempted (unsuccessfully) to navigate the obstacles to stating a justiciable claim. By refraining from communications (i.e., the potentially harmful conduct), the plaintiffs have negated any possibility that the NSA will ever actually intercept their communications and thereby avoided the anticipated harm — this is typical of declaratory judgment and perfectly permissible. See Med-Immune, 127 S.Ct. at 772-73. But, by proposing only injuries that result from this refusal to engage in communications (e.g., the inability to conduct them professions without added burden and expense), they attempt to supplant an insufficient, speculative injury with an injury that appears sufficiently imminent and concrete, but is only incidental to the alleged wrong (i.e., the NSA’s conduct) — this is atypical and, as will be discussed, impermissible. Therefore, the injury that would support a declaratory judgment action (i.e., the anticipated interception of communications resulting in harm to the contacts) is too speculative, and the injury that is imminent and concrete (i.e., the burden on professional performance) does not support a declaratory judgment action. This general proposition — the doctrine of standing — is explained more fully in the sections of the analysis regarding each, individual cause of action. III. By claiming six causes of action, the plaintiffs have actually engaged in a thinly veiled, though perfectly acceptable, ruse. To call a spade a spade, the plaintiffs have only one claim, namely, breach of privacy, based on a purported violation of the Fourth Amendment or FISA — i.e., the plaintiffs do not want the NS A listening to their phone calls or reading their emails. That is really all there is to it. On a straightforward reading, this claim does not implicate the First Amendment. The problem with asserting only a breach-of-privacy claim is that, because the plaintiffs cannot show that they have been or will be subjected to surveillance personally, they clearly cannot establish standing under the Fourth Amendment or FISA. The plaintiffs concede as much. In an attempt to avoid this problem, the plaintiffs have recast their injuries as a matter of free speech and association, characterized their claim as a violation of the First Amendment, and engaged the First Amendment’s relaxed rules on standing. This argument is not novel, but neither is it frivolous; it warrants consideration, analysis, and an a full explanation by this court. At this point, it becomes apparent that my analysis of whether the plaintiffs have standing diverges at a fundamental level from that of the concurring and dissenting opinions. They each employ a single, broad, all-encompassing analysis, with which they attempt to account for all of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, requested remedies, and legal claims. As much as I would prefer that resolution of this question were so simple, I believe the law demands a particularized analysis of the plaintiffs’ three alleged injuries, six asserted legal claims, and two requested forms of relief. See Cuno, 126 S.Ct. at 1867 (“[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press.”); Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 185, 120 S.Ct. 693 (“[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought.”). Therefore, I believe the complexity of this case calls for a far more specific and comprehensive analysis than that offered by my colleagues. A comprehensive analysis of all six claims in a single opinion, however, invites some overlap of legal doctrine, precedent, and reasoning. Such overlap similarly invites ambiguity, confusion, and misapplication. To avoid this pitfall, I define the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries precisely, confine each cause of action to its own section, and take special care to ensure that I do not improperly carry precedent or legal doctrine from one cause of action to another. The benefit of precision will, I hope, outweigh any annoyance created by strict compartmentalization or redundancy. IV. The analytical approach to the determination of standing for constitutional claims differs from the approach to statutory claims. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731-32, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972). Whether a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy is what has traditionally been referred to as the question of standing to sue. Where the party does not rely on any specific statute authorizing invocation of the judicial process, the question of standing depends upon whether the party has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, as to ensure that the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution. Where, however, Congress has authorized public officials to perform certain functions according to law, and has provided by statute for judicial review of those actions under certain circumstances, the inquiry as to standing must begin with a determination of whether the statute in question authorizes review at the behest of the plaintiff. Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court clarified: Congress may not confer jurisdiction on Art. Ill federal courts to render advisory opinions, or to entertain ‘friendly’ suits, or to resolve ‘political questions,’ because suits of this character are inconsistent with the judicial function under Art. III. But where a dispute is otherwise justiciable, the question whether the litigant is a ‘proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue,’ is one within the power of Congress to determine. Id. at 732 n. 3, 92 S.Ct. 1361 (citations omitted). Therefore, this analysis is separated into two sections — constitutional claims and statutory claims — and, by happenstance, the six causes of action are equally divided, with three in each section. A. Constitutional Claims “The irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains, three requirements”: “[1] injury in fact, [2] causation, and [3] redressability.” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-03, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (citations and footnotes omitted). “Injury in fact” is a harm suffered by the plaintiff that is “concrete and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 103, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (quotation marks omitted) (citing Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed.2d 135 (1990)). “Causation” is “a fairly traceable connection between the plaintiffs injury and the complained-of conduct of the defendant.” Id. (citing Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976)). “Re-dressability” is “a likelihood that the requested relief will redress the alleged injury.” Id. (citing Warth, 422 U.S. at 505, 95 S.Ct. 2197). This “irreducible constitutional minimum” applies to every claim sought-to be litigated in federal court. 1. First Amendment The plaintiffs allege that the NSA has, by conducting the warrantless wiretaps, violated the free speech and free association clauses of the First Amendment. The district court assumed that the plaintiffs had engaged in certain “protected expression,” apparently referring to the telephone and email communications. Although the plaintiffs’ painstaking efforts to keep these communications confidential belies the contention that this case involves expression,1 nonetheless assume this is a viable First Amendment cause of action. Standing to litigate this claim requires a showing of three elements: (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-03, 118 S.Ct. 1003. Injury in Fact “Art. Ill requires the party who invokes the court’s authority to show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Sep. of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982) (quotation marks omitted). “Allegations of a subjective ‘chill’ are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm[.]” Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13-14, 92 S.Ct. 2318, 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972). The Supreme Court’s “clear precedent requir[es] that the allegations of future injury be particular and concrete.” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 109, 118 S.Ct. 1003. The Supreme Court framed the question in Laird, 408 U.S. at 10, 92 S.Ct. 2318, as “whether the jurisdiction of a federal court may be invoked by a complainant who alleges that the exercise of his First Amendment rights[] is being chilled by the mere existence, without more, of a governmental investigative and data-gathering activity.” The Court held that its plaintiffs, subjects of secret United States Army surveillance, may have suffered a “subjective chill,” but did not allege a sufficiently concrete, actual, and imminent injury to entitle them to standing. Id. at 15, 92 S.Ct. 2318. Something “more” was necessary, and in a passage that is peculiarly applicable to the present case, the Court explained: In recent years [we have] found in a number of cases that constitutional violations may arise from the deterrent, or ‘chilling,’ effect of governmental regulations that fall short of a direct prohibition against the exercise of First Amendment rights. In none of these cases, however, did the chilling effect arise merely from the individual’s knowledge that a governmental agency was engaged in certain activities or from the individual’s concomitant fear that, armed with the fruits of those activities, the agency might in the future take some other and additional action detrimental to that individual. Rather, in each of these cases, the challenged exercise of governmental power was regulatory, "proscriptive, or compulsory in nature, and the complainant was either presently or prospectively subject to the regulations, proscriptions, or compulsions that he was challenging. Id. at 11, 92 S.Ct. 2318 (citations omitted; emphasis added); accord Sinclair, 916 F.2d at 1114-15 (finding surveillance alone insufficient for standing); United Presb. Church v. Reagan, 738 F.2d 1375, 1380 (D.C.Cir.1984) (finding no injury in fact because “no part of the challenged [surveillance] imposes or even relates to any direct governmental constraint upon the plaintiffs”). I cannot subscribe to a view that the reason the injury in Laird was insufficient was because the plaintiffs alleged “only” chilled speech and that, by something “more,” the Laird Court meant more subjective injury or other injuries that derive from the chilled speech. The plaintiffs in Laird were political activists and the speech being chilled was political speech. Laird, 408 U.S. at 2, 92 S.Ct. 2318. In First Amendment jurisprudence, political speech is the most valued type of speech. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 422, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring) (“Our First Amendment decisions have created a rough hierarchy in the constitutional protection of speech. Core political speech occupies the highest, most protected position .... ”). To say that there could be more injury in other circumstances is to suggest that political speech is not valuable in and of itself and that no consequences flow from the chilling of political speech if such consequences are not easily articulable. Certain plaintiffs in the present case contend that the “professional injuries” that flow from the chilling of their “professional” speech is enough to satisfy Laird’s requirement of something “more.” Under such reasoning, if the Laird plaintiffs had alleged a chilling of some commercial speech, they would have had standing because the lost sales would constitute easily articulable injuries resulting from the chilling, which would — under this view — constitute something “more.” This is nonsense, as it would effectively value commercial speech above political speech and protect the former but not the latter. It is also at odds with the remainder of the Laird opinion and First Amendment doctrine in general. Consequently, it is not the value of the speech that determines the injury but the level of restraint, and “chilling” is not sufficient restraint no matter how valuable the speech. Therefore, to allege a sufficient injury under the First Amendment, a plaintiff must establish that he or she is regulated, constrained, or compelled directly by the government’s actions, instead of by his or her own subjective chill. Laird, 408 U.S. at 11, 92 S.Ct. 2318; Reagan, 738 F.2d at 1378. The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Reagan, 738 F.2d at 1380, involved a plaintiffs First Amendment challenge to alleged government surveillance. The Reagan court clarified why mere subjective chill deriving from government surveillance is insufficient to establish a concrete injury, stating: The harm of ‘chilling effect’ is to be distinguished from the immediate threat of concrete, harmful action. The former consists of present deterrence [of the plaintiff, by the government,] from First Amendment conduct because of the difficulty [that plaintiff has in] determining the application of a [government practice] to that conduct, and will not by itself support standing. Id. “ ‘Chilling effect’ is cited as the reason why the governmental imposition is invalid [under the First Amendment] rather than as the harm which entitles the plaintiffs to challenge it.” Id. at 1378. In an attempt to establish harm, the Reagan plaintiffs claimed that they were “especially likely to be targets of the unlawful [surveillance] authorized by the order,” but the court explained: Even if it were conceded that ... the plaintiffs [were] at greater risk than the public at large, that would still fall far short of the ‘genuine threat’ required to support this theory of standing, as opposed to mere ‘speculative’ harm. It must be borne in mind that this order does not direct intelligence-gathering activities against all persons who could conceivably come within its scope, but merely authorizes them. Id. at 1380 (citations omitted). The Reagan court therefore held that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement because they did not allege that “any direct governmental constraint” was “threatened or even contemplated against them.” Id. The present case is no different. The plaintiffs here contend that the NSA has inflicted First Amendment injury in two ways, both of which prevent them from performing their jobs or pursuing other lawful objectives. The first injury, which went unaddressed by the district court, involves the plaintiffs’ own unwillingness to communicate with their overseas contacts by telephone or email. The plaintiffs fear that the NSA may intercept their communications, and therefore, their ethical obligations require them to forgo the communications in order to avoid interception. The injurious consequence of the NSA’s conduct, the plaintiffs contend, is that they must either suffer diminished performance in their jobs for lack of communication, or else bear the cost of traveling overseas to meet with these contacts in person. Even accepting this as a good faith assertion and assuming the factual statements are true, the plaintiffs’ first injury still involves two purely speculative fears: (1) that the NSA will actually intercept the plaintiffs’ particular communications, and (2) that armed with the fruit of those interceptions, the NSA will take action detrimental to the contacts. If, on the other hand, the plaintiffs could be assured that the NSA would not intercept their communications, or, if interception occurs, that no harm would befall the overseas contacts, then the NSA could continue the TSP wiretapping without harm to the plaintiffs. It is not the mere existence of the TSP, but the possibility that the plaintiffs’ overseas contacts will be subjected to it, that ultimately results in the alleged harm. Even assuming these fears are imminent rather than speculative, this is still a tenuous basis for proving a concrete and actual injury. That is, even if it were certain that the NSA would intercept these particular plaintiffs’ overseas communications, if the overseas contacts were nonetheless willing to communicate with the plaintiffs by telephone or email in spite of the impending interception, then it is doubtful that the plaintiffs (journalists, academics, lawyers, or organizations), who have themselves alleged no personal fear of our government (or basis for fear of our government), would still be unwilling or unable to communicate. The plaintiffs’ unwillingness comes not from any anticipated harm to themselves, but from their apprehension for and duty to their overseas contacts. Moreover, even if their allegations are true, the plaintiffs still allege only a subjective apprehension and a personal (self-imposed) unwillingness to communicate, which fall squarely within Laird, 408 U.S. at 13-14, 92 S.Ct. 2318. In fact, this injury is even less concrete, actual, or immediate than the injury in Laird. In Laird, the Army was conducting “massive and comprehensive” surveillance of civilians, secretly and (apparently) without warrants. The Laird plaintiffs alleged that the Army surveillance program caused a chilling effect on their First Amendment rights in that they and others were reluctant to associate or communicate for fear of reprisal, stemming from their fear that the government would discover or had discovered them (and their activities) by way of the secret surveillance. The harm alleged in the present case is no more substantial; the plaintiffs allege a similar chilling effect on their First Amendment rights, in that they are bound by professional and ethical obligations to refrain from communicating with their overseas contacts due to their fear that the TSP surveillance will lead to discovery, exposure, and ultimately reprisal against those contacts or others. But unlike the Laird plaintiffs, the plaintiffs here do not assert that they personally anticipate or fear any direct reprisal by the United States government, or that the TSP data is being widely circulated or misused. Indeed, the district court stated that, to date, no one has been exposed or prosecuted based on information collected under the TSP. ACLU v. NSA, 438 F.Supp.2d at 771. The plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Laird. They first contend that they have alleged a chilling of their own communications, whereas the Laird plaintiffs did not. But the Laird plaintiffs alleged the same amount (or lack) of personalized surveillance as the present plaintiffs claim, and both alleged a chilling of their own communications. Even if this distinction were accurate, it would not alter Laird’s holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction over eases in which the plaintiff “alleges that the exercise of his First Amendment rights is being chilled by the mere existence, without more, of a governmental investigative and data-gathering activity.” Laird, 408 U.S. at 10, 92 S.Ct. 2318. The plaintiffs next argue that they have alleged a present injury, namely, an inability to engage in the communication necessary to perform their professional duties, whereas the plaintiffs in Laird alleged only a speculative future harm. But the injury alleged here is just as attenuated as the future harm in Laird; the present injury derives solely from- the fear of secret government surveillance, not from some other form of direct government regulation,.prescription, or compulsion. Id. at 11, 92 S.Ct. 2318. Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the Laird plaintiffs’ reactions to the surveillance were unreasonable because there was no illegal conduct alleged in that case. Laird, however, did not discuss the reasonableness of its plaintiffs’ response; it held that the mere subjective chill arising from the government’s investigative activity — reasonable or hot — is insufficient to establish First Amendment standing. Id. at 15-16, 92 S.Ct. 2318; see also Reagan, 738 F.2d at 1378 (rejecting an identical attempt to distinguish Laird). I find these attempts to distinguish Laird unpersuasive. The plaintiffs have directed us to several- other decisions as support for their assertion that their professional injuries constitute something “more” than subjective chill. See, e.g., Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 107 S.Ct. 1862, 95 L.Ed.2d 415 (1987); Ozonoff v. Berzak, 744 F.2d 224 (1st Cir. 1984); Patón v. LaPrade, 524 F.2d 862 (3d Cir.1975). I reiterate that the something “more” required by Laird is not merely more subjective injury, but is the exercise of governmental power that is regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory in nature, and that directly regulates, proscribes, or compels the plaintiffs. And these three cases involve plaintiffs who can show direct injury because the government did directly regulate, order, or constrain them. These cases certainly do not help the present plaintiffs, who are not subject to any direct government regulation, order, or constraint. Rather, to the extent the plaintiffs claim that they are prevented, required, compelled, or coerced in their actions, it is due not to any direct and immediate order or regulation by the government, but to circumstances stemming from the plaintiffs’ own subjective apprehension that (1) their communications will be intercepted by the NSA and (2) that interception will be detrimental to their overseas contacts. This is not a concrete, actual, and imminent injury for purposes of establishing standing. See Laird, 408 U.S. at 11, 92 S.Ct. 2318; Reagan, 738 F.2d at 1378-80. In Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. at 465, 107 S.Ct. 1862, the plaintiff, Mr. Keene, a lawyer and a member of the state legislature, wanted to exhibit certain films that a federal statute required be labeled as “political propaganda.” Id. at 469-70, 107 S.Ct. 1862. The Court found that the harm to Mr. Keene’s personal, political, and professional reputation, that would result from his exhibiting films labeled “propaganda,” constituted injury in fact. Id. at 472, 107 S.Ct. 1862. It is evident from even a cursory reading of the case, however, that Mr. Keene was subject to a regulatory statute that directly and expressly ordered the labeling of the films in the manner that would cause the harm. Id. at 472-74, 107 S.Ct. 1862. The plaintiffs in the present case are not regulated by the NSA’s operation of the TSP in any way, nor are they directly ordered to do or refrain from doing anything. Meese offers no support for the plaintiffs’ position. In Ozonoff v. Berzak, 744 F.2d at 224, the plaintiff, Dr. Ozonoff, sought employment with the World Health Organization, and the government ordered him to submit to a loyalty investigation as a condition of seeking the job. Id. at 225. The First Circuit found that this requirement created a speech- and association-related qualification for the WHO job, which effectively punished Dr. Ozonoff for joining certain organizations or expressing certain views. The court held that this requirement created a concrete injury, satisfying the injury-in-fact element. Id. at 229. In contrast, the NSA’s operation of the TSP does not directly order or require the plaintiffs to do anything; instead, it is the plaintiffs’ subjective apprehension (that the NSA might intercept their communication) that compels, coerces, or motivates the plaintiffs to alter their behavior. As with Meese, Ozonoff offers no support for the plaintiffs’ position under the present circumstances. Finally, in Patón v. LaPrade, 524 F.2d at 862, Ms. Patón challenged the government’s retention of an FBI file on her alleged involvement with the Socialist Workers Party because the existence of that file “endanger[ed] her future educational and employment opportunities.” Id. at 868. The Third Circuit found a sufficiently concrete future injury deriving from the existence of that file. Id. Ms. Patón was not only subject to government regulation, she knew and could prove that the government had intercepted her specific mail (not just mail of a like kind) and was maintaining an FBI file on her particular activities (not just activities of a like kind). In stark contrast, the plaintiffs in the present case allege only their suspicion and fear (i.e., their “well founded belief’) that their contacts are likely targets of the TSP or that their communications are likely to be intercepted. As documented in the present record, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated and cannot demonstrate that the NSA is monitoring their particular personal activities. I find no basis — either factual or legal— upon which to distinguish Laird from the First Amendment claim raised by the plaintiffs here, and I conclude that Laird controls this claim. But let me reemphasize, just to be perfectly clear, that I do not contend that Laird controls this entire case — it does not. Laird controls the First Amendment claim, based on the first type of injury. The plaintiffs’ first alleged injury, arising from a personal subjective chill, is no more concrete, actual, or imminent than the injury alleged in Laird. The injury in Laird was insufficient to establish standing for a First Amendment cause of action; the plaintiffs’ first injury is less than or, at best, equal to that in Laird; and the plaintiffs’ first injury is likewise insufficient to establish standing. The plaintiffs’ second injury is the unwillingness of their overseas contacts, clients, witnesses, and sources to communicate by telephone or email, due to their fear that the NSA will intercept the communications. The district court, in its standing analysis, framed the issue this way: The Plaintiffs in this case are not claiming simply that the [NSAJ’s surveillance has ‘chilled’ them from making international calls to sources and clients.-- Rather, they claim that Defendants’ surveillance has chilled their sources, clients, and potential witnesses from communicating with them. The alleged effect on Plaintiffs is a concrete, actual inability to communicate with witnesses, sources, clients and others without great expense which has significantly crippled Plaintiffs, at a minimum, in their ability to report the news and competently and effectively represent their clients. ACLU v. NSA, 438 F.Supp.2d at 769 (emphasis added). Under this view, the plaintiffs claim that their contacts have been chilled, which prevents them from communicating with these contacts. In Presbyterian Church v. United States, 870 F.2d 518, 520 (9th Cir.1989), the Ninth Circuit considered a claim by plaintiff churches that “INS agents entered the churches wearing ‘body bugs’ and surreptitiously recorded church services” in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. The district court had dismissed the claims for lack of standing, based on the plaintiffs’ failure to show injury in fact, opining that the protections of the First Amendment extend not to corporations but to individuals, because “churches don’t go to heaven.” Id. at 521. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiff churches had pled a sufficient injury: When congregants are chilled from participating in worship activities [and]'refuse to attend church services because they fear the government is spying on them and taping their every utterance, all as alleged in the complaint, we think a church .suffers organizational injury because its ability to carry out its ministries has been impaired. Id. at 522 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit then distinguished Laird: ■ Although Laird establishes that a litigant’s allegation that it has suffered a subjective ‘chill’ does not necessarily confer Article III standing, Laird, does not control this case. The churches in this case are not claiming simply that the INS surveillance has ‘chilled’ them from holding worship services. Rather, they claim that the INS surveillance has chilled individual congregants from attending worship services, and that this effect on the congregants has in turn interfered with the churches’ ability to carry out their ministries. The alleged effect on the churches is not a mere subjective chill on their worship activities; it is a concrete, demonstrable decrease in attendance at those worship activities. The injury to the churches is ‘distinct and palpable.’ Laird has no application here. Id. (citations omitted). In one sense, the Ninth Circuit’s decision could be read as concluding that the churches suffered injury based on the actions of third parties (i.e., individual parishioners) — a reading that supports the plaintiffs’ arguments in favor of standing. In another sense, however, the Ninth Circuit’s decision may be confined to the unique idea of “organizational injury”; a church is, after all, an organization comprising a congregation of parishioners, and these congregants are properly viewed as intrinsic to the church organization, rather than as separate third parties. This reading of Presbyterian Church would weaken its application to the present context because the overseas third-party clients, contacts, and sources in this case are not affiliated with the plaintiffs in the same intrinsic manner as are parishioners with a church. None of the plaintiffs have alleged any “organizational injury” in the present context. Having acknowledged these alternative interpretations of Presbyterian Church, it is unnecessary to resolve that issue definitively on this record. Injury in fact is but one of the criteria necessary to establish standing, and ultimately, it is not determinative of this case. Either of the other two criteria — causation or redressability— might ultimately defeat the plaintiffs’ claim of standing, even if the plaintiffs’ alleged injury is deemed adequate to state an injury in fact. Causation “[F]ederal plaintiffs must allege some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action before a federal court may assume jurisdiction.” Simon, 426 U.S. at 41, 96 S.Ct. 1917 (citations and footnotes omitted; emphasis added). “In other words, ... a federal court [may] act only to redress injury that fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and not injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Id. at 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917 (emphasis added). Causation “depends considerably upon whether the plaintiff is himself an object of the action ... at issue.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). When causation hinges on independent third parties, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the third parties’ choices “have been or will be made in such a manner as to produce causation and permit redressability of injury.” Id. at 562,112 S.Ct. 2130. In the present case, the “putatively illegal action” is the NSA’s interception of overseas communications without warrants (specifically FISA warrants), and the “threatened or actual injury” is the added cost of in-person communication with the overseas contacts (or correspondingly, the diminished performance resulting from the inability to communicate). Therefore, to show causation, the plaintiffs must show that, but for the lack of warrants (or FISA compliance), they would not incur this added cost. There are two causal pathways based on the two types of alleged injury. In the first: (1) the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping, (2) creates in the plaintiffs a “well founded belief’ that their overseas telephone and email communications are being intercepted, which (3) requires the plaintiffs to refrain from these communications (i.e., chills communication), and (4) compels the plaintiffs to travel overseas to meet personally with these contacts in order to satisfy their professional responsibilities, thereby (5) causing the plaintiffs to incur additional costs. In the second: (1) the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping (2) causes the “well founded belief,” which (3) compels the overseas contacts to refuse to communicate by telephone or email (i.e., chills communication), thereby (4) requiring in-person communication, with its (5) associated additional costs. The district court attempted to articulate this relationship: “All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted.” ACLU v. NSA 438 F.Supp.2d at 767 (footnote omitted). From this, the district court theorized: “Plaintiffs would be able to continue using the telephone and email in the execution of their professional responsibilities if the Defendants were not undisputedly and admittedly conducting warrantless wiretaps of conversations.” Id. at 769. In considering these causal pathways, I question the second step (whether the “well founded belief’ is actually founded on the warrantless wiretapping) and refute the third step (whether the unwillingness to communicate is actually caused by the warrantless character of the wiretaps). The underpinning of the second step is questionable. The plaintiffs allege that they have a “well founded belief’ that their overseas contacts are likely targets of the NSA and that their conversations are being intercepted. The plaintiffs have no evidence, however, that the NSA has actually intercepted (or will actually intercept) any of their conversations. No matter what the plaintiffs and others might find “reasonable,” the evidence establishes only a possibility — not a probability or certainty — that these calls might be intercepted, that the information might be disclosed or disseminated, or that this might lead to some harm to the overseas contacts. While this lack of evidence is not, by itself, enough to disprove causation, the absence of this evidence makes the plaintiffs’ showing of causation less certain and the likelihood of causation more speculative. The third step is unsupportable. In this step, the plaintiffs allege, and the district court found, that it is the absence of a warrant (and all that goes with it) that has chilled the plaintiffs and then-overseas contacts from communicating by-telephone or email. See ACLU v. NSA 438 F.Supp.2d at 769 (“Plaintiffs would be able to continue using the telephone and email in the execution of their professional responsibilities if the Defendants were not undisputedly and admittedly conducting warrantless wiretaps of conversations.”). This allegation does not stand up under scrutiny, however, and it is not clear whether the chill can fairly be traced to the absence of a warrant, or if the chill would still exist without regard to the presence or absence of a warrant. The insufficiency of this step leads to a breakdown in the causal pathway. See Simon, 426 U.S. at 42-43, 96 S.Ct. 1917; Laird, 408 U.S. at 14 n. 7, 92 S.Ct. 2318 (“Not only have respondents left somewhat unclear the precise connection between the mere existence of the challenged system and their own alleged chill, but they have also cast considerable doubt on whether they themselves are in fact suffering from any such chill.”). A wiretap is always “secret” — that is its very purpose — and because of this secrecy, neither the plaintiffs nor their overseas contacts would know, with or without a warrant, whether their communications were being tapped. Therefore, the NSA’s secret possession of a warrant would have no more effect on the subjective willingness or unwillingness of these parties to “freely engage in conversations and correspond via email,” see ACLU v. NSA 438 F.Supp.2d at 770, than would the secret absence of that warrant. The plaintiffs have neither asserted nor proven any basis upon which to justifiably conclude that the mere absence of a warrant — rather than some other reason, such as the prosecution of the War on Terror, in general, or the NSA’s targeting of communications involving suspected al Qaeda terrorists, affiliates, and supporters, in particular — is the cause of the plaintiffs’ (and their overseas contacts’) reluctance to communicate by telephone or email. The plaintiffs have argued that if the NSA were to conduct its surveillance in compliance with FISA, they would no longer feel compelled to cease their international telephone and email communications. But again, even if the NSA had (secretly) obtained FISA warrants for each of the overseas contacts, who the plaintiffs themselves assert are likely to be monitored, the plaintiffs would still not have known their communications were being intercepted, still faced the same fear of harm to their contacts, still incurred the same self-imposed (or contact-imposed) burden on communications and, therefore, still suffered the same alleged injury. The plaintiffs’ theory relies on their contention that their ethical obligations require them to cease telephone or email communications any time they believe the private or privileged information in those communications might be discovered or disclosed to the detriment of their clients, sources, or contacts. Assuming that this contention is true, it must also be true that this ethical obligation would arise whenever, and continue so long as, the plaintiffs believe their contacts to be the types of people likely to be monitored by the NSA. The imposition of FISA requirements into this scenario would not change the likelihood that these overseas contacts are the types of people who the plaintiffs believe would be monitored. Nor would it change the plaintiffs’ “well founded belief’ that the NSA is intercepting their communications with these individuals, the plaintiffs’ ethical obligations, or the overseas contacts’ subjective fears. Even under the plaintiffs’ depiction, it would merely assure the plaintiffs and their contacts that — while their international telephone and email communications with al Qaeda affiliates are still just as likely to be intercepted — the NSA will obtain FISA Court orders, which will presumably limit the duration and content of the acquisition and the use and dissemination of the acquired information. The plaintiffs, however, have not asserted, explained, or proven how a change in the duration or content of the NSA’s interceptions — purely hypothetical changes that are unknown and unknowable based on the established record and the State Secrets Doctrine — would alleviate their fears. Specifically, the plaintiffs have' not proffered any types or topics of communication, from which they are currently refraining, but about which— upon the imposition of FISA’s limitations and protections — they would thereafter “freely engage in conversations and correspond[ence] via email.” See ACLU v. NSA 438 F.Supp.2d at 770. Some plaintiffs (especially those who are lawyers) assert that the imposition of FISA minimization — to limit the use and dissemination of the information acquired — would relieve their fears sufficiently to satisfy their ethical obligations because it would ensure that those communications would remain confidential and privileged in the event of a subsequent criminal prosecution, removal proceeding, military tribunal, etc. Therefore, they argue, imposition of FISA requirements would alter the type and content of their communications. This theory, however, is predicated on the assumption that their current fears and apprehensions are justified — and there is no support for this assumption. First, there is no evidence in the current record from which to presume that the information collected by the NSA via warrantless wiretapping will be used or disclosed for any purpose other than national security. Next, there is no evidence in the record from which to presume that the NSA is not complying with, .or even exceeding, FISA’s restrictions on the acquisition, retention, use, or disclosure of this information (i.e., FISA’s minimization techniques). Finally, there is no basis to presume that traditional post-hoc remedies, such as the Exclusionary Rule or FISA’s civil suit provision, 50 U.S.C. § 1810, would not adequately deter the use or dissemination of this information. Consequently, this disconnect in the plaintiffs’ theory is unavoidable, and the plaintiffs’ injury is not fairly traceable to the mere absence of FISA compliance. Under the plaintiffs’ second form of injury (i.e., the refusal by the overseas contacts to communicate by telephone or email), this third step in the causal pathway is further dis