Can the federal government stop states from investigating whether telephone companies illegally provided customer information to the National Security Agency?
A federal judge in San Francisco will take up that issue today as the Justice Department and the phone companies attempt to block state investigations into the Bush administration's Terrorist Surveillance Program.
After published reports last year alleging that AT&T and Verizon cooperated with the government on the surveillance program, customers and the American Civil Liberties Union urged state officials to probe whether the firms had illegally shared call records with the government.
Verizon said it had not worked with the NSA. AT&T said it had always followed the law but would not comment on any dealings with the government.
After the companies declined to answer formal questions, officials from New Jersey, Missouri, Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont launched investigations.
Firms subpoenaed
Some of those states, citing state laws protecting consumer privacy, issued subpoenas to the companies.
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's attorney general, explained why his state jumped in: "We are seeking information vital to protecting our citizens and our consumers against potential unlawful disclosure of customer telephone records. We are not seeking operational details of an intelligence operation."
The Justice Department intervened, suing officials in the five states. The suits contended the probes were prohibited because the federal government has sole jurisdiction over national security, military affairs and the gathering of foreign intelligence.
Justice Department lawyers, led by Assistant Atty. Gen. Peter D. Keisler, also asked that the telecommunications companies be prevented from saying whether they had participated in government wiretapping or data mining. The government said officials could not even confirm or deny the existence of the NSA program "without causing exceptionally grave harm to national security."
The Maine attorney general's office countered that to "exercise their right to privacy, telephone subscribers must be able to limit the dissemination of their telephone numbers to persons of their choosing."
'Potential risk' cited
