U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Companies Should Be Allowed To Break Law if Helping Government

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is arguing to a federal appeals court that laws shouldn't apply to companies that help the government in the name of homeland security and that the court should dismiss a suit against AT&T for allegedly violating federal privacy laws in helping the government spy on Americans without warrants.

The group contends that companies can't defend themselves from such suits since doing so would require disclosing classified information -- which is banned by federal law -- and that allowing such suits would dissuade companies from helping the government.

The group filed an amicus brief (.pdf) with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last month, as the court prepares to hear an appeal of a lower court decision allowing a suit against AT&T by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to proceed, despite the government's attempt to squash the case by arguing that the case will imperil national security.

The advent of a judicially weakened state secrets privilege would force such companies and industries, which represent a broad cross section of the American business community, to weight their sense of patriotic duty against the heavy costs and burdens of being subjected to potential, highly publicized, politically volatile litigation, as well as potential liability, merely for acting, as they have in the past, as good corporate citizens by providing national security assistance to the Government when called upon to do so.

Erosion of the state secrets privilege also could create more subtle, but very real, potential physical or financial dangers for cooperating companies and industries. For example, if despite the Government's assertion of the state secrets privilege it were revealed in litigation that a particular corporate defendant is engaged in assisting the United State in an anti-terrorism program, that company's facilities and personnel could be targeted by terrorists.

Or domestic political opponents of the Government's national security policies or programs could try to organize publicity campaigns or boycotts against cooperating companies or industries. Indeed, there has been massive publicity about Appellee's claims in this suit, including their allegations about alleged terrorist surveillance activities being conducted at a particular AT&T switching facility.

The court has yet to set a hearing date for the appeal, though briefs from AT&T, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Government are due to the court in the coming weeks.