FILED
AUG 25 2 12 PM '97
RICHARD W. WIEKING
CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NO. DIST. OF CA.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DANIEL J. BERNSTEIN No. C-95-0582 MHP
Plaintiff OPINION
vs.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.
Defendants
_________________________________________/
Plaintiff Daniel Bernstein originally brought this action
against the Department of State and the individually named
defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from their
enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act ("AECA"), 22 U.S.C.
§ 2778 (1990), and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
("ITAR"), 22 C.F.R. §§ 120-30 (1994), on the grounds that they are
unconstitutional on their face and as applied to the plaintiff. The
court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross motions
for summary judgment on December 9, 1996. Just prior to the court's
order, President Clinton by Executive Order 13026 transferred
jurisdiction over the export of nonmilitary encryption products to
the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Export Administration
Act of 1979 ("EAA"). 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 2401 et seq. (1991), and
the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"), 15 C.F.R. Pt. 730 et
seq. (1997). On December 30, 1996, the Commerce Department issued
an interim rule regulating certain encryption products. 61 Fed.
Reg. 68572 (Dec. 30, 1996). Plaintiff subsequently amended his
complaint to include the
1
new regulations and new defendants. Now before this court are the
parties' second cross-motions for summary judgment on the question
of whether licensing requirements for th export of cryptographic
devices, software and related technology covered by the amendments
to the EAR constitute an impermissable infringement on speech in
violation of the First Amendment.
Having considered the parties' arguments and submissions, and for
the reason set forth below, the court enters the following
memorandum and order.
BACKGROUND1
At the time this action was filed, plaintiff was a PhD
candidate in mathematics at University of California at Berkeley
working in the field of cryptography, an area of applied mathematics
that seeks to develop confidentiality in electronic communication.
Plaintiff is currently a Research Assistant Professor in the
Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science at the
University of Illinois at Chicago.
I. Cryptography
Encryption basically involves running a readable message known
as "plaintext" through a computer program that translates the
message according to an equation or algorithm into unreadable
"ciphertext." Decryption is the translation back to plaintext when
the message is received by someone with an appropriate "key." The
message is both encrypted and decrypted by compatible keys.2 The
uses of cryptography are far-ranging in an electronic age, from
protecting personal messages over the Internet and transactions on
bank ATMs to ensuring the secrecy of military intelligence. In a
prepublication copy of a report done by the National Research
Council ("NRC") at the request of the Defense Department on
national cryptography policy, the NRC identified four major uses of
cryptography: ensuring data integrity, authenticating users,
facilitating nonrepudiation (the linking of a specific message with
a specific sender) and maintaining confidentiality. Tien Decl.,
Exh. E, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,
Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society C-2
(prepublication Copy May 30, 1996) (hereinafter "NRC
2
Report").
Once a field dominated almost exclusively by governments
concerned with protecting their own secrets as well as accessing
information held by others, the last twenty years has seen the
popularization of cryptography as industries and individuals alike
have increased their use of electronic media and have sought to
protect their electronic products and communications. NRC Report at
vii. As part of this transformation, cryptography has also become
a dynamic academic discipline within applied mathematics. Appel
Decl. at 5; Blaze Decl. at 2.
II. Prior Regulatory Framework
Plaintiff's original complaint and both of the court's
decisions in this action were directed at the regulations in force
at the time, the ITAR, promulgated to implement the AECA. The ITAR,
administered within the State Department by the Director of the
Office of Defense Trade Controls ("ODTC"), Bureau of Politico-
Military Affairs, regulates the import and export of defense
articles and defense services by designating such items to the
United States Munitions List ("USML"), 22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1).3
Items listed on the USML, which at the time included all
cryptographic systems and software, require a license before they
can be imported or exported. 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2). The ITAR
allows for a "commodity jurisdiction procedure" by which the ODTC
determines if an article or service is covered by the USML when
doubt exists about an item. 22. C.F.R. § 120.4(a).
As a graduate student, Bernstein developed an encryption
algorithm he call "Snuffle." He describes Snuffle as a zero-delay
private-key encryption system. Complaint Exh. A. Bernstein has
articulated his mathematical ideas in two ways: an academic paper
in English entitled "The Snuffle Encryption system," and in "source
code" written in "C", a high-level computer programming
language,4 detailing both the encryption and decryption, which he
calls "Snuffle.c" and "Unsnuffle.c", respectively. Once source code
is converted to "object code," a binary system consisting of a
series of 0s and 1s read by a computer, the computer is capable of
encrypting and decrypting data.
3
In 1992 plaintiff submitted a commodity jurisdiction ("CJ")
request to the State Department to determine whether Snuffle.c and
Unsnuffle.c (together referred to as Snuffle 5.0), each submitted
in C language source files, and his academic paper describing the
Snuffle system, were controlled by ITAR.5 The ODTC determined that
the commodity Snuffle 5.0 was a defense article on the USML under
Category XIII of the ITAR and subject to licensing by the Department
of State prior to export. The ODTC identified the item as a "stand-
alone cryptographic algorithm which is not incorporated into a
finished software product." Complaint Exh. B.
Alleging that he was not free to teach, publish or discuss with
other scientists his theories on cryptography embodied in his
Snuffle program, plaintiff brought this action challenging the AECA
and the ITAR on the grounds that they violated the First Amendment.
In Bernstein I this court found that source code was speech for
purposes of the First Amendment and therefore plaintiff's claims
presented a colorable constitutional challenge and were accordingly
justiciable. In Bernstein II the court concluded that the licensing
requirements for encryption software under the ITAR constituted an
unlawful prior restraint. The court also considered vagueness and
overbreadth challenges to certain terms contained in the ITAR. The
court issued its decision in Bernstein II on December 9, 1996.
III. The Transfer of Jurisdiction and the Current Regulatory Framework
On November 15, 1996, President Clinton issued Executive Order
13026, titled "Administration of Export Controls on Encryption Products,"
in which he ordered that jurisdiction over export controls on nonmilitary
encryption products and related technology be transferred from the
Department of State to the Department of commerce. The President's
Executive Order specifies that encryption products that would be
designated as defense articles under the USML and regulated under the
AECA are now to be placed on the Commerce Control List ("CCL"), under
the EAR. The White House Press Release accompanying the Executive Order
clarified that encryption products designed for military applications
would remain on the USML and continue to be regulated under the ITAR.
Press Release Accompanying Exec. Order No. 13026, at 2 (hereinafter
"Press Release")
4
The Executive Order also provides a caveat that is repeated in the
Press Release and throughout the new regulations: "the export of
encryption software, like the export of other encryption products
described in this section, must be controlled because of the
software's functional capacity, rather than because of any
informational value of such software...." Exec. Order No. 13026,
61 Fed. Reg. 58768 (1996). The Press Release states that encryption
products must be controlled for foreign policy and national security
interests and concludes by noting that if the new regulations do not
provide adequate controls on encryption products then such products
will be redesignated as defense articles and placed again on the
USML. Press Release, at 1, 4.
The EAR were promulgated to implement the EAA, but the EAA is not
permanent legislation. Lapses in the EAA have been declared national
emergencies and the President has issued Executive orders authorizing
continuation of the EAR export controls under the authority of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"), 50 U.S.C.
§§ 1701-1706. See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 12924, 59 Fed. Reg. 43437
(1994). Executive Order 13026 states that the authority of the
President to administer these changes in the export control system
under the EAR derives in part from the IEEPA and that the new controls
on encryption products are "additional steps with respect to the
national emergency described and declared" in the previous Executive
Orders continuing in effect the EAR. Exec. Order No. 13026, 61 Fed.
Reg. 58767 (1996).
On December 30, 1996, the Bureau of Export Administration
("BXA") under the Department of Commerce issued an interim rule
amending the EAR "by exercising jurisdiction over, and imposing new
combined national security and foreign policy controls on, certain
encryption items that were on the [USML].: 61 Fed. Reg. 68572
(1996) (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. Pts. 730-774) ("encryption
regulations" or "new regulations"). The EAR is structured around
the CCL. 15 C.F.R. Pt. 774, 61 Fed. Reg. 12937 (1996), which
categorizes items whose export is regulated according to various
criteria, including the reason for their control. The new
regulations add a category called "Encryption Items" or "EI" as a
reason for control. 61 Fed. REg. 68579 (1996) (to be codified at 15
C.F.R. § 738.2(d)(2)(I)(A)). Encryption items are defined as "all
encryption commodities, software, and technology that contain
encryption features and are subject to EAR." 61 Fed. Reg. 68585 (to
5
be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 772). This does not include those
items still listed on the USML and controlled by the Department of
State. With certain exception, one must obtain a license from the
BXA prior to exporting any item listed on the CCL. See 15 C.F.R.
Pts. 740-44. All items on the CCL are given an Export Control
Classification Number ("ECCN") which can be used to determine the
categories under which an item is controlled and the reasons for
its control.
The new regulations add three categories of items to the CCL
which are controlled for EI reasons,6 all of them more generally
classified in Category 5, which covers telecommunications and
information security. See C.F.R. § 738.2(a). Those items are ECCN
5A002, covering encryption commodities; ECCN 5D002, covering
encryption software; and ECCN 5E002, covering encryption
technology. 61 Fed. Reg. 68586-87 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. §
774 supp. 1). For export licensing purposes, encryption software is
treated the same as an encryption commodity. See note following
ECCN 5D002. A commodity is defined generally as "[a]ny article,
material, or supply except technology and software." 61 Fed. Reg.
68586 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. Pt. 772). Encryption software is
regulated differently from other software controlled by the CCL and
is defined as "[c]omputer programs that provide capability of
encryption functions or confidentiality of information or
information systems. Such software includes source code, object
code, applications software, or system software." 61 Fed. Reg.
68585 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. Pt. 772).7 Definitions of
encryption source code and encryption object code have also been
added.8 Technology has not been amended by the encryption
regulations and is defined generally as teh technical data or
technical assistance necessary for the development or use of a
product. 15 C.F.R. Pt. 772. Controlled technology is that
technology required for the development or use of items on the CCL.
15 C.F.R. Pt. 774 supp. 2 (General Technology Note). New
restrictions on technical assistance have been added, however, to
require a license to provide technical assistance (including
training) to foreign persons with the intent to aid them in the
foreign development of items that if they were domestic would be
controlled under ECCNs 5A002 and 5D002.9 61 Fed. Reg. 68584 (to
be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 744.9(a)); 61 Fed. Reg. 68579 (to be
codified at 15 C.F.R. § 736.2(b)(7)(ii)).
6
The EAR defines export as "an actual shipment or transmission of
items subject to the EAR out of the United States, or release of
technology or software subject to the EAR to a foreign national in the
United States ...." 15 C.F.R. § 734.2(b)(1). The encryption regulations
add a specific definition of export for encryption source code and object
code software controlled under ECCN 5D002 which includes
downloading, or causing the downloading of, such software to
locations (including electronic bulletin boards, Internet file
transfer protocol, and World Wide Web sites) outside the United
States, over wire, cable, radio, electromagnetic, photooptical,
photoelectric or other comparable communication facilities
accessible to persons outside the United States, including
transfers from electronic bulletin boards, Internet file transfer
protocol and World Wide Web sites, unless the person making the
software available takes precautions adequate to prevent
unauthorized transfer of such code outside the United States.
61 Fed. Reg. 68578 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 734.2(b)(9)).
A number of licensing exceptions are available under the EAR. See
15 C.F.R. Pt. 740. Under the encryption regulations, after a one-time
review by BXA, licensing exceptions will be available for certain
commercial encryption items, including mass-market encryption software,
key-recovery software and commodities, and non-recovery encryption items
up to 56-bit key length DES or equivalent strength software accompanied
by a commitment to develop recoverable items. 61 Fed. Reg. 68581 (to be
codified at 15 C.F.R. § 742.15). In general, items that are already
publicly available or contain "de minimus" domestic content are not
subject to the EAR. 15 C.F.R. §§ 734.3(b)(3) & 734.4. However, as
directed by the President and implemented by the new regulations, these
exceptions do not apply to encryption commodities or software. 61 Fed.
Reg. 68577-78 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. §§ 732.2(b) & (d), 734.3(b)(3),
734.4(b)); Exec. Order No. 13026, 61 Fed. Reg. 58768 (1996) ("I have
determined that the export of encryption products described in this
section could harm national security and foreign policy interests even
where comparable products are or appear to be available from sources
outside the United States ...."). This exception for encryption software
to the general exclusion of publicly available Items appears to pertain
to publicly available or published information and software within the
United States as well. 61 Fed. Reg. 68578 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R.
§ 734.7(c)). In addition, the EAR allows for broadly defined exceptions
from the regulations for information resulting from fundamental research
7
and educational information. 15 C.F.R. §§ 734.8, 734.9, & supp. 1.
Neither of these exceptions applies to encryption software controlled
under ECCN 5D002. 61 Fed. Reg. 68579 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R.
§§ 734.8, 734.9). They do appear to apply to encryption technology.
Finally, phonographic records and most printed matter are not subject to
the EAR and encryption software is not exempted from this exclusion.
15 C.F.R. § 734.3(b)(2). Indeed, an intriguing if somewhat baffling note
appears in the new regulations: "A printed book or other printed material
setting forth encryption source code is not itself subject to the EAR
(see § 734.3(b)(2)). However, notwithstanding § 734.3(b)(2), encryption
source code in electronic form or media (e.g. computer diskette or CD
ROM) remains subject to the EAR (see § 734.3(b)(3))."10 61 Fed. Reg.
68578 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 734.3).
Licenses are required for export of items controlled by ECCNs
5A002, 5D002 and 5E002 for all destinations except Canada. 61 Fed. Reg.
68580 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 742.15(a)). Applications for
licenses "will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by BXA, in conjunction
with other agencies, to determine whether the export or reexport is
consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy interests." 61
Fed. Reg. 68581 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 742.15(b)). The EAR
provides that license applications will be resolved or referred to the
President within 90 days. 15 C.F.R. § 750.4(a). While an applicant who is
denied a license is informed of appeal procedures, 15 C.F.R. § 750.6(a)(6),
the EAR does not appear to allow for judicial review. 15 C.F.R.
§ 756.2(c)(2); 50 U.S.C. App. § 2412(e).
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment shall
be granted "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to
establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case,
and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial . . .
since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the
nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); See also T.W.
Elec. Serv. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th
Cir. 1987) (the nonmoving party may not
8
rely on the pleadings but must present significant probative evidence
supporting the claim); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.s. 242,
248 (1986) (a dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.").
The court's function, however, is not to make credibility
determinations, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, and the inferences to be drawn
from the facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party
opposing the motion. T W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631.
Where as here, the question is purely a legal one involving no
disputes,of material fact, the matter is appropriately handled on a
motion for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that the EAR, specifically the amendments
regulating encryption items, both facially and as applied, constitutes a
prior restraint on plaintiff's right to free speech, is unconstitutionally
vague and overbroad, is content-based, and violates his freedom of
association. Plaintiff also claims that the presidential transfer of
jurisdiction to the Commerce Department and the encryption regulations
themselves exceed their statutory authority and are ultra vires.
Plaintiff requests declaratory and nationwide injunctive relief. In
addition to opposing plaintiff's claims, defendants seek to dismiss
certain defendants as extraneous and ask that the court vacate its
decision in Bernstein II.
I. Statuatory Authority of the President and the Agency to Regulate
Encryption Items
In his amended complaint plaintiff alleges that the presidential
transfer of jurisdiction and the subsequent agency regulations are ultra
vires because the President and the Department of Commerce lacked
statutory authority under the IEEPA to regulate encryption products.
Plaintiff contends that the IEEPA, by its own terms, restricts the
regulation of information protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiff
also argues that use of the IEEPA requires an international emergency,
which is not identified in the President's Executive Order. Plaintiff
also maintains that the
9
regulation of encryption products by the President and the Secretary
violates the APA.
Defendants contend that the court lacks jurisdiction to review
presidential determinations under the IEEPA. To the extent a claim may
still lie against the Secretary, defendants argue that the IEEPA does not
preclude export controls on encryption items.
Although the parties do not identify this claim as a threshold
issue, plaintiff's argument is that the transfer of jurisdiction to
Commerce and the Secretary's regulations were in excess of their
statutory authority and are therefore invalid. To the extent this issue
implicates the very validity of the current regulations, the court finds
that it should be addressed before a review on the merits. In addition,
courts must consider nonconstitutional questions before reaching
constitutional considerations in order to avoid passing on
constitutionality where possible. Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846, 854
(1985).
A. The IEEPA
The IEEPA authorizes the President "to deal with any unusual and
extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part
outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or
economy of the United States, if the President declares a national
emergency with respect to such threat." 50 U.S.C. § 1701(a). Under this
authority the President may "investigate, regulate, or prohibit any
transaction in foreign exchange," 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(A)(I), and
investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or
prohibit, any . . . exportation of . . . any property in which any
foreign country or a foreign national thereof has any interest ...."
50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B). However, the IEEPA explicitly excludes any
authority
to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly -- any postal,
telegraphic, or other personal communication, which does not
involve a transfer of anything of value; . . . or the importation
from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether
commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of
transmission, of any information or informational materials,
including but not limited to, publications, films, posters,
phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes,
compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds.
50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(1) & (3) (1991 & Supp. 1996). The statute goes on to
limit the above exemption to those exports which are not otherwise
controlled under sections 2404 and 2405 of the
10
EAA. 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(3).
The IEEPA was passed in 1977 as a refinement of the Trading With
the Enemy Act of 1917 ("TWEA"), which at the time provided a source of
presidential emergency authority. S. Rep. No. 95-466, at 2 (1977),
reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4540, 4541. In the Senate Report
accompanying the passage of the IEEPA, the Committee suggests that what
became section 1702(b) was intended to exclude donations and humanitarian
contributions from emergency regulation so long as such transfers did not
subvert the effective exercise of emergency authority. S. Rep. No. 95-466,
at 5; Section 1702(b)(3) of the IEEPA was enacted in 1988 and amended in
1994 to broaden and strengthen the exemption for informational materials.
According to the House Conference Report, language adopted in 1988 was
intended to ensure "that no embargo may prohibit or restrict directly or
indirectly the import or export of information that is protected under
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The language was explicitly
intended, by including the words 'directly or indirectly' to have a broad
scope." H.R. Con. Rep. No. 103-482, at 239 (1994), reprinted in 1994
U.S.C.C.A.N. 302, 483. However, overly-narrow interpretations of section
1702(b)(3) by the Treasury Department prompted the 1994 amendment to
"facilitate transactions and activities incident to the flow of
information and informational materials without regard to the type of
information, its format, or means of transmission, and electronically
transmitted information ...." H.R. Con. Rep. No. 103-482, at 239.
B. Statutory Authority of the President to Regulate Encryption
Items Under the IEEPA
Plaintiff argues that President Clinton exceeded his authority
under the IEEPA because the encryption items regulated are properly exempt
from regulation under section 1702(b) and because the transfer was not a
temporary exercise of emergency authority.11 Defendants claim that the
President's actions are not reviewable.
It is clear that the President's order is not reviewable under the
APA. Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 796 (1992). In Franklin, an
action seeking APA review of the decennial reapportionment of the House
of Representatives, the Supreme Court concluded that "the
11
final action complained of is that of the President, and the President is
not an agency within the meaning of the [APA]." Id. The Court went on to
note that the President's actions were still reviewable for
constitutionality. Id. at 801.
Less clear is the extent to which a court may review a non-APA claim
that the President exceeded his statutory authority where there is no
allegation of a constitutional violation. Not long after Franklin the
Supreme Court decided Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994), in which it
reviewed a claim that the President exceeded his statutory authority
under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act. The court below had
attempted to follow Franklin by reasoning that when the President's
actions exceed his statutory authority he also violates the
constitutional separation of powers doctrine. Id. at 471. The Dalton
Court rejected this conclusion, holding that "claims simply alleging that
the President has exceeded his statutory authority are not
'constitutional' claims, subject to judicial review under the exception
recognized in Franklin." Id. at 473-74 (footnote omitted). However, the
Court did not rule out the possibility of judicial review of statutory
claims entirely.
We may assume for the sake of argument that some claims that the
President has violated a statutory mandate are judicially reviewable
outside the framework of the APA. But longstanding authority holds
that such review is not available when the statute in question
commits the decision to the discretion of the President.
Id. at 474 (citing Dames & Moore v. Reagan, 453 U.S. 654, 667 (1981)).
The Court went on to conclude that the statute in question did not limit
the President's discretion and was therefore unreviewable.
Notably, Dames & Moore, the case cited by the Court for the
proposition that some non-APA statutory claims may still be subject to
judicial review, involved review of various Executive Orders and
regulations issued pursuant to the IEEPA which nullified attachments on
Iranian assets in the United States and suspended claims against Iran
following the hostage crisis. While the Court did not address the
reviewability of the claims,12 it did indicate that when the President
acts under authorization from Congress "the executive action 'would be
supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of
judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would
12
rest heavily upon any who might attack it.'" Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at
668 (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637
(1952)). The Court concluded that the IEEPA did authorize the
nullification of attachments but did not directly authorize the
suspension of claims. Id. at 675. However, despite this conclusion, the
Court went on to find that due in part to the tenor and breadth of the
IEEPA and congressional acquiescence in the practice of claim settlement
by executive agreement, the President did not lack the power to settle
claims against Iran.
Although the Supreme Court suggested the possibility of judicial
review of non-APA statutory claims, it did not indicate, beyond the very
narrow and specific instance identified in Dames & Moore, under what
circumstances that review might take place. One appellate court has
concluded that Dalton does not preclude judicial review of executive
action for conformity with an authorizing statute, or any other statute.
Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1331 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Unlike the actions in Franklin and Dalton where the final action taken
was by the President, and much like the present case, Chamber of Commerce
involved an Executive Order which initiated agency regulations where the
regulations carried direct and final consequences for the plaintiff.
However, the court in Chamber of Commerce speaks boldly about the
reviewability of executive action without readily distinguishing between
whether such review lies equally for the President as for an executive
official.13 In fact, in a footnote the court concedes that the "Dalton
Court's hesitancy to review presidential action . . . suggests a
reluctance to bring judicial power to bear directly on the President.
Of course, here we are concerned with the long established non-statutory
review of a claim directed at a subordinate executive official." Id. at
1331 n.4. Indeed, the court goes on to note that in all the cases cited
by the Dalton court, "special reasons existed for concluding that
judicial review was precluded." Id. at 1331 n.5. Those reasons involved
matters of political discretion and national security. Id.
Finally, in United States v. Spawr Optical Research, Inc., 685 F.2d
1076 (9th Cir. 1982), the Ninth Circuit, in a case predating Franklin and
Dalton, reviewed an Executive Order by President Ford under the IEEPA's
predecessor, the TWEA, continuing the EAA export regulations pending
expiration of that Act. The Spawrs were convicted of the unlicensed
exportation of laser mirrors
13
after the EAA's expiration "when the sole basis for the regulations was
the Executive Order." Id. at 1080. Much like plaintiff here, the Spawrs
argued on appeal that the government lacked authority to prosecute them
because there was no genuine emergency, the regulations were not related
to any emergency then in effect, and Congress had intended to let the
regulations lapse. Id. Reviewing language very similar to that of the
IEEPA, the court found that the statute afforded broad and extensive
powers. Id. Noting that in the face of such broad discretion, courts have
been wary of reviewing the political considerations involved in declaring
or continuing a national emergency, the Spawr court declined to do so as
well. Id. However, the court then concluded that "[a]lthough we will not
address these essentially-political questions, we are free to review
whether the actions taken pursuant to a national emergency comport with
the power delegated by Congress." Id. at 1081 (citing United States v.
Yoshida International Inc., 526 F.2d 560, 579 (Cust. & Pat. App. 1975)).
In swift analysis the court went on to find that the regulations were
rationally related to the emergency claimed and that Congress did not
intend to terminate the regulations. Id. In fact, the court noted that
each time the EAA had lapsed previously the President had issued an
Executive Order declaring a national emergency to continue the export
regulations and "Congress not only tolerated this practice, it expressed
approval of the President's reliance on the TWEA to maintain the export
regulations." Id. Such has been the case under the IEEPA as well.14 See,
e.g., Exec. Order No. 12444, 48 Fed. Reg. 48215 (1983); Exec. Order No.
12730, 55 Fed. Reg. 40373 (1990), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. App. § 1701 at
598 (1991); Exec. Order No. 12924, 59 Fed. Reg. 43437 (1994). Plaintiff
notes that in recent years Congress has criticized use of the IEEPA to
extend export regulations when the EAA lapses. Plf. Mem. in Opp. at 17
n.49 (citing statements made by various members of Congress). Be that as
it may, it is within Congress' power to change this practice and it has
chosen not to.
While the analysis in Spawr is useful given that the facts are
strikingly similar to the instant action, this court cannot ignore the
skepticism with which the Supreme Court recently has approached judicial
review of a presidential exercise of statutory authority absent a
constitutional claim. As noted above, this case differs from Franklin
and Dalton in that the final action is taken by
14
the agency rather than the President.15 But that does not significantly
change the analysis of whether the actions the President took are
reviewable. On this score Chamber of Commerce is not illuminating and
the Supreme Court's allusion to Dames & Moore remains opaque. Indeed,
given that the law is still unsettled on this question and that
considerations precluding review do not apply to agencies -- thereby
allowing plaintiff to seek the same relief from agency action on the
basis of a claim that the agency acted in excess of statutory authority
-- the court favors deference to the executive. In light of the recent
Supreme Court decisions in this area, this court concludes that it
cannot review whether the President exceeded his statutory authority
under the IEEPA to transfer jurisdiction of encryption items to the
Commerce Department.
C. Statutory Authority of the Commerce Secretary to Regulate
Encryption Items Under the IEEPA
Of critical importance in both Franklin and Dalton was the fact
that the President was responsible for the final action under the
statutes at issue. "What is crucial is the fact that '[t]he President,
not the [Commission], takes the final action that affects' the military
installations." Dalton, 511 U.S. at 470 (quoting Franklin, 505 U.S. at
799). Here we have the situation at issue in Chamber of Commerce, where
the President's Executive Order initiated the regulatory process and
left it to the agency to finalize the rules. "That the Secretary's
regulations are based on the President's Executive Order hardly seems to
insulate them from judicial review ...." Chamber of Commerce, 74 F.3d at
1327; see also Milena Ship Management Co. Ltd. v. Newcomb, 804 F.
Supp. 846, 850 (E.D.La. 1992) (reviewing agency action taken pursuant to
an unchallenged executive order under the IEEPA). Accordingly, this court
will examine whether the Commerce Department's regulation of encryption
items is consistent with the IEEPA.16
To the extent that plaintiff argues that the regulations governing
encryption are not a temporary exercise of emergency power, the question
really belongs to the legitimacy of the Executive Order in the first
instance and the court declines to address it. The declaration of a
national emergency is an action that rests with the President and is
based on his broad discretion
15
under section 1701 of the IEEPA. Moreover, the question of employing the
IEEPA or the TWEA before it -- to maintain export regulations during
lapses in the EAA was essentially laid to rest by the Ninth Circuit in
Spawr and by the legislative history of the IEEPA.
[I]t is unmistakable that Congress intended to permit the President
to use the TWEA to employ the same regulatory tools during a
national emergency as it had employed under the EAA. We, therefore,
conclude that the President had the authority during the nine-month
lapse in the EAA to maintain the export regulations.
Spawr, 685 F.3d at 1082.
The gravamen of plaintiff's ultra vires argument is that the IEEPA
does not authorize the regulation of speech, particularly speech that
does not involve a foreign interest in property, and that as speech,
encryption software fits well within the exemption for personal
communications and informational materials in sections 1702(b)(1) & (3).
With respect to whether encryption software fits within the scope
of "property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any
interest", the court finds that section 1702(a))1) is sufficiently broad
to allow for many forms of property, both tangible and intangible, and
many forms of interest, both direct and indirect. See 31 C.F.R. §§
500.311, 500.312; see also Spawr, 685 F.2d at 1081 n.10 (finding that
section 5(b) of the TWEA was broad enough to allow regulation "of any
property to any foreign country"). Encryption software or other
technology comes within this section.
Plaintiff also alleges that the regulations are beyond the statutory
authority of the IEEPA because they affect personal communications and
informational materials. Section 1702(b)(1) prohibits direct or indirect
regulation of "any postal, telegraphic, telephonic or other personal
communication" which does not transfer anything of value. As defendants
convincingly argue, to the extent this argument is directed at academic
discussion of cryptographic ideas, the regulations attempt to exempt such
communications -- although whether they do so according to the demands of
the First Amendment is a separate question. To the extent this argument
is directed at cryptographic software generally, it does not appear to
fit within this seemingly narrow and simple provision. Nor can it be
assured that software would have no value. Indeed, there are potentially
billions of dollars
16
at stake in the export of commercial encryption software. See Jared
Sandberg, "Judge Rules Encryption Software Is Speech in Case on Export
Curbs," Wall St. J., Apr. 18,1996, at B7. Thus, the regulations do not
exceed this statutory provision.
Finally, plaintiff contends that the regulations go beyond the
authority provided by section 1702(b)(3) which specifically limits
regulation of information or informational materials regardless
of format or medium of transmission. Plaintiff argues that the broad
scope of this provision precludes regulation of encryption software. In
addition, plaintiff contends that by specifically referencing sections
2404 and 2405 of the EAA, and exempting -- from the informational
materials exemption -- items "otherwise controlled for export" under
those sections, the court is bound by principles of statutory
construction to consider only those items controlled when section
1702(b)(3) was last amended, or April 30, 1994. Plaintiff then concludes
that because encryption software fits within the scope of this provision
and was not otherwise controlled under the EAA as of April of 1994, it
cannot be regulated under the IEEPA.
Defendants contend that section 1702 (b)(3) does not expressly
provide for software, and that to include software in those items
exempted from regulation for their informational value would lead
to absurd results. Moreover, defendants counter plaintiff's statutory
construction argument and claim that the items exempted from this
provision by virtue of being controlled under the EAA are not only those
that were on the Commerce Control List as of April of 1994 but any others
that have since been added -- including the encryption technology at
issue here. Defendants also argue that to read section 1702(b)(3) as
exempting encryption software on the basis that it is protected under
the First Amendment would be to impose a novel theory of free speech not
contemplated by Congress.
As noted above, the IEEPA explicitly excludes any authority
to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly -- . . . the
importation from any country, or the exportation to any country,
whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or
medium of transmission, of any information or informational
materials, including but not limited to, publications, films,
posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche,
tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The
exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph
do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export
under section 2404 of the Appendix to this title, or under section
2405 of the Appendix to this title to the extent that such controls
promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the
United States ...."
17
50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)(3) (Supp. 1996).
First, the court must consider whether software -- in this case,
encryption software -- comes within the exception to the exception; if
so, then the instant regulations do not exceed their statutory authority.
In other words, anything controlled by sections 2404 and 2405 of the EAA
may be regulated regardless of its informational content. Under the
referenced sections of the EAA the President may "prohibit or curtail
the exportation of any goods, technology, or other information subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States" for either national security
or foreign policy reasons. 50 U.S.C. App. § 2405(a)(1) (foreign policy
controls); 50 U.S.C. App. § 2404(a)(1) (national security controls). It
is not disputed that Executive Order 13026, by transferring encryption
products to the Commerce Control List ("CCL"), subjected them to
regulation under sections 2404 and 2405 of the EAA.
The question becomes whether reference to sections 2404 and 2405 of
the EAA should be understood to include all items currently on the CCL --
in which case the present regulations effectively remove encryption
products from the exemption -- or whether rules of statutory construction
require the court to construe the reference to those sections as
including only those items listed at the time section 1702(b) was last
amended, or April 30, 1994. A secondary issue complicates this already
complicated matter further: since sections 2404 and 2405 do not
themselves designate specific items on the CCL, which is governed by
regulation, does the construction of the IEEPA with respect to those
sections also apply to their implementing regulations?
Plaintiff relies on a canon of statutory construction discussed in
Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 314 (1938) and Pearce v. Director,
Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 603 F.2d 763, 767 (9th Cir. 1979)
which holds that without clear congressional indication to the contrary,
where one statute adopts provisions of another by specific reference to
the provisions adopted (known as a statute of specific reference) the
effect is that such adoption takes the provision as it existed at the
time of adoption and does not include subsequent amendments; conversely,
where a statute adopts the general law in a given area (a statute of
general reference), it is construed to adopt that law's subsequent
amendments. See 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 51.07 (4th ed.
1984).
18
Plaintiff claims that the IEEPA is a statute of specific reference and
cannot be read as adopting subsequent changes to sections 2404 and 2405
of the EAA. Plaintiff further supports this position by pointing to the
fact that at least one agency has interpreted the "informational
materials" provision to exclude items that were, as of April 30, 1994,
controlled for export under sections 5 and 6 of the EAA. 31 C.F.R.
§ 560.31 S(b) (Office of Foreign Assets Control regulation of Iranian
transactions).
Defendants contend that the IEEPA is more like the statute in
United States v. Smith, 683 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir. 1982), in which the
Ninth Circuit read the Youth Corrections Act ("YCA") as not incorporating
specific provisions of the general probation statute. The court concluded
that while there were persuasive arguments on both sides, the YCA did not
really appear to adopt or incorporate the referenced provisions of the
probation statute. "Rather, it merely provides that the YCA is not to
'be construed in any wise to amend, repeal, or affect the provisions of'
the probation statute." Id. at 1239. According to the court this was not
properly a statute of specific reference in which certain provisions of
another statute are incorporated into it, but one that "actually
emphasizes that these are distinct statutes". Id. Under defendants'
reasoning, section 1702(b)(3) of the IEEPA does not incorporate sections
2404 and 2405 of the EAA but rather distinguishes them and as such
those sections are to be read with their full and current force.
This court believes that defendants have the better argument. The
rules of statutory interpretation are not hard and fast. "A provision
which, in terms, however, reads as a specific reference may, in context,
be construed as a general reference." United States v. Rodriguez-
Rodriguez, 863 F.2d 830, 831 (11th Cir. 1989). Such is the case here.
Read in context, section 1702(b)(3) excludes rather than incorporates
those items covered under the EAA. Moreover, the sections referenced are
themselves fairly general and are clearly intended to be fleshed out by
regulations suited to meet the changing needs of national security and
foreign policy. Given the goals of the IEEPA and the powers it gives the
President, it would seem odd indeed for Congress to exclude from the
exemption those items the President deems sensitive to the national
security under the EAA, but to freeze that list of items as of a certain
date. As the court noted in Smith, this "is the
19
more appropriate interpretation in view of the policies that the
[statute] is designed to advance. It is proper, and indeed essential, to
interpret the words of a statute in the light of the purposes Congress
was seeking to serve." 683 F.2d at 1240 (citations omitted). Therefore,
because encryption products are currently regulated under sections 2404
and 2405 of the EAA they do not fall within the exemption for
informational materials.17
Accordingly, this court finds that the regulation of encryption
items is not prohibited by section 1702(b)(3) and therefore does not
exceed the statutory authority provided by the IEEPA. It is worth noting
at this juncture that this court's rather narrow determination that
source code is speech protected by the First Amendment does not serve to
remove encryption technology from all government regulation. Both parties
exaggerate the debate needlessly. Plaintiff does so by aggrandizing the
First Amendment, by assuming that once one is dealing with speech that it
is immaterial what the consequences of that speech may be. Defendants do
so by minimizing speech, by constantly referring to "mere speech" or
"mere ideas" in their briefs and assuming that the functionality of
speech can somehow be divorced from the speech itself. This controversy
is before this court precisely because there is no clear line between
communication and its consequences. While defendants may have the
authority to regulate encryption source code, they must nonetheless
do so within the bounds of the First Amendment.
II. Prior Restraint18
A. Analytical Framework
As the Supreme Court has stated, in determining the extent of the
constitutional protection afforded by the guarantees of the First
Amendment, "it has been generally, if not universally, considered that
it is the chief purpose of the guaranty to prevent previous restraints
upon publication." Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 713 (1931). It is
for this reason that the Court has held: "Any prior restraint on
expression comes to this Court with a 'heavy presumption' against its
constitutional validity." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402
U.S. 415, 419 (1971) (citations omitted).
20
While prior restraints have often come in the form of judicial
injunctions on publication, see e.g., C.B.S. v. Davis,510 U.S. 1315
(1994); New York Times v. United States 403 U.S. 713 (1971), they are
also recognized in licensing schemes. See e.g., FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas,
493 U.S. 215 (1990); Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S.
750 (1988). Governments may impose valid time, place and manner
restrictions when they are content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a
substantial governmental interest, and leave open alternative channels
for communication. See e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence,
468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984). However, "even if a government may
constitutionally impose content-neutral prohibitions on a particular
manner of speech, it may not condition that speech on obtaining a license
or permit from a government official in that official's boundless
discretion." Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 764.
It is axiomatic that the First Amendment is more tolerant of
subsequent criminal punishment of speech than it is of prior restraints
on the same speech.
The thread running through all these cases is that prior
restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the
least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights. A criminal
penalty or a judgment in a defamation case is subject to the whole
panoply of protections afforded by deferring the impact of the
judgment until all avenues of appellate review have been exhausted....
A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an
immediate and irreversible sanction. If it can be said that a threat
of criminal or civil sanction after publication "chills" speech,
prior restraint "freezes" it at least for the time.
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559(1976).
While the Supreme Court has consistently rejected the idea that a
prior restraint can never be employed, id. at 570, it nonetheless begins
with a presumption of invalidity. The danger inherent in prior restraints
is largely procedural, in that they bypass the judicial process and
locate in a government official the delicate responsibility of passing
on the permissibility of speech. See Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51,
58 (1965) (holding that "a noncriminal process which requires the prior
submission of a film to a sensor avoids constitutional infirmity only if
it takes place under procedural safeguards designed to obviate the
dangers of a censorship system".) Freedman sets forth three procedural
safeguards that have been used by the Supreme Court to examine licensing
schemes: 1) any restraint prior to judicial review can only be imposed
for a brief and specified period
21
during which the status quo prevails; 2) expeditious judicial review must
be available; and 3) the censor must bear the burden of going to court to
suppress speech and once there bears the burden of proof FW/PBS, 493 U.S.
at 227 (citing Freedman, 380 U.S. at 58-60).
When the risks associated with unbridled licensing schemes are
present to a significant degree, "courts must entertain an immediate
facial attack on the law." Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 759.
B. Analysis
In Bernstein II this court held that the ITAR effected an
unconstitutional prior restraint on speech due to inadequate procedural
safeguards. Plaintiff contends that the new encryption regulations suffer
from identical deficiencies. Defendants do not argue that the effect of
the new regulations is notably different from that of the ITAR.19 They
do, however, present arguments against some of the reasoning in
Bernstein II and to the extent that these arguments are applicable to
the current analysis, the court will address them.
1. Controls on Encryption Commodities and Software
First, defendants protest that a facial challenge is not applicable
here because there is not a "close enough nexus to expression, or to
conduct commonly associated with expression, to pose a real and
substantial threat of identified censorship risks." Lakewood, 486 U.S.
at 759. In Lakewood, a newspaper challenged a city ordinance which
required annual permits for newsracks on public property and gave the
mayor authority to grant or deny applications for those permits. The
Court contrasted laws that are directed at expression, such as one
governing the circulation of newspapers, with laws of general
applicability not aimed at conduct commonly associated with expression,
such as a law requiring building permits. Id. at 760-61. The former risks
self-censorship on the part of those applying for permits and censorship
on the part of the decisionmaker. The latter rarely do. See also
Freedman, 380 U.S. 51 (licensing of films); FW/PBS, 493 U.S. 215
(licensing of sexually-oriented businesses). Defendants contend that
while licensing schemes that vest unbridled discretion to regulate
conduct commonly associated with expression are appropriate for facial
attack
22
under prior restraint doctrine, such is not the case here where the
activity at issue is the programming of a computer to encrypt
information.20 Defendants also cite Roulette v. City of Seattle, 97 F.3d
300, 305 (9th Cir. 1996), to support their contention that only laws
narrowly and specifically directed at expressive activities are subject
to facial challenge. At issue in Roulette was an ordinance that
prohibited people from sitting or lying on public sidewalks in certain
areas and during certain times. The court, in a pithy opinion, held that
"[t]he fact that sitting can possibly be expressive, however, isn't
enough to sustain plaintiffs' facial challenge to the Seattle ordinance....
Consistent with this speech-protective purpose, the Supreme Court has
entertained facial freedom-of-expression challenges only against
statutes that, 'by their terms,' sought to regulate" words or expressive
conduct. Id. at 303 (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612-13
(1973)).
The court does not disagree with defendants' statement of the law
but with their application to the facts. The encryption regulations
issued by the BXA are much more like the regulation of newspaper racks
than lying or sitting. The new regulations are directed quite
specifically and "by their terms" to an entire field of applied
scientific research and discourse. Where one places a newspaper rack is
not an activity associated with expression, but the availability of
newspapers generally is. Similarly, while the export of a commercial
cryptographic software program may not be undertaken for expressive
reasons, that same activity -- undisputably regulated under the EAR -- is
often undertaken by scientists for purely expressive reasons. By the very
terms of the encryption regulations, the most common expressive
activities of scholars -- teaching a class, publishing their ideas,
speaking at conferences, or writing to colleagues over the Internet --
are subject to a prior restraint by the export controls when they involve
cryptographic source code or computer programs. In the field of applied
science ideas are not just expressed in abstract, theoretical terms, but
in precise applications. Those applications are subject to licensing
under the encryption regulations and are excluded from the exemptions for
fundamental research and educational information. This is precisely the
kind of law identified in Lakewood that risks self-censorship on the part
of those that must apply for licenses and censorship on the part of the
decisionmaker. As the American Association for the Advancement of Science
("AAAS") stated to the BXA in their comments
23
regarding the new regulations, the "basic thrust" of the Interim Rule
threatens to undermine essential features of scientific freedom and
the open exchange of information that are generally acknowledged as
critical to innovation in science and technology and are responsible
in large part for the preeminence of America's research and
development enterprise. AAAS opposes attempts by the government to
restrict the communication or publication of unclassified research
and technical information, efforts which we believe are inconsistent
with scientific advancement.
Wimberly Decl., Exh. A, at 1. The regulations merit the application of
the prior restraint doctrine because they present "a danger of unduly
suppressing protected expression." Freedman, 380 U.S. at 54.
The encryption regulations, like Category XIII of the USML, is
specifically directed at speech protected by the First Amendment. The
Department of Commerce requires a license to export items controlled
under ECCNs 5A002 and 5D002. And as made explicit by the new regulations,
export includes publication where publication is or could be made
electronic and even where the information to be published is already
publicly available. In fact, in spite of the disclaimers regarding
functionality and the exception for printed materials, the encryption
regulations issued by the BXA appear to be even less friendly to speech
interests than the ITAR. Here encryption software is singled out and
treated differently than other software regulated under the EAR. 61 Fed.
Reg. 68580 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 742.15); see FW/PBS, 493 U.S.
at 225 ("Therefore, even assuming the correctness of the city's
representation of its 'general' inspection scheme, the scheme involved
here is more onerous with respect to sexually-oriented businesses than
with respect to the vast majority of other businesses.").
And the exception for printed materials, while at first glance a
concession to the speech interests involved, is so irrational and
administratively unreliable that it may well serve to only exacerbate
the potential for self-censorship. 61 Fed. Reg. 68578 (to be codified at
15 C.F.R. § 734.3). First, the exception is unreliable because the BXA
has indicated that it reserves the right to control scannable source
code in printed form. 61 Fed. Reg. 68575. Second, the exception seeks to
codify a distinction between paper and electronic publication that makes
little or no sense and is untenable. See Bernstein II, 945 F. Supp. at
1291 n.10. As the AAAS commented,
24
[w]hile it is acceptable under this provision to publish such
material in a book and distribute it internationally without an
export license, putting the same information on a disk and sending
it abroad is subject to EAR approval. This distinction has serious
ramifications for scholarly communication as many professional
journals are now moving onto the Internet as electronic publications.
Wimberly Decl, Exh. A, at 1. As an example, the AAAS noted that their
journal Science is available in both print and electronic form. At oral
argument defendants admitted that encryption code in print form could be
converted into a functioning encryption product, but defended the
distinction on the basis that converting the print version to working
software required a good deal of skill. The court is somewhat confounded
by this explanation. Defendants claim that encryption poses unique and
serious threats to national security, yet the printed matter exception
belies this rationale by making encryption freely available to only those
foreigners who are technologically sophisticated. Defendants conceded at
oral argument that the effect of this dichotomy would be to make it more
difficult only for the more inept. This seems to defeat the very purpose
of the regulation since those who likely pose a greater threat to
national security are likely more willing to expend the time and
resources in that effort and will not be prevented by the regulation.
In effect, the exception undermines the stated purpose of the
regulations. Again, the government conceded that in only a slightly
greater length of time and with some greater technological skill, the
regulation could be defeated.
Finally, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Reno v. American
Civil Liberties Union, ___U.S.___, 117 S.Ct. 2239 (1997), suggests that
not only is the distinction between print and electronic media
increasingly untenable, but that the Internet is subject to the same
exacting level of First Amendment scrutiny as print media
This dynamic, multifaceted category of communication includes not
only traditional print and news services, but also audio, video,
and still images, as well as interactive, real-time dialogue.
Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can
become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it
could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail
exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a
pamphleteer. As the District Court found, 'the content on the
Internet is as diverse as human thought.' We agree with its
conclusion that our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level
of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.
Id. at 2344. Thus, the dramatically different treatment of the same
materials depending on the
25
medium by which they are conveyed is not only irrational, it may be
impermissible under traditional First Amendment analysis.
As this court noted in Bernstein II, that BXA regulates encryption
in the interest of national security does not alone justify a prior
restraint. In New York Times Co., 403 U.S. at 714, the Supreme Court
invalidated a prior restraint on classified material that had been
enjoined in the interests of national security. While that case inspired
nine separate opinions on the propriety of enjoining publication of the
Pentagon Papers in The New York Times and The Washington Post, a
majority of Justices found national security, without more, too amorphous
a rationale to abrogate the protections of the First Amendment. See id.
at 719 (Black, J. and Douglas, J., concurring). Justice Brennan concluded
that the First Amendment's ban on prior restraints could only be
overridden in time of war, id. at 726 (Brennan, J. concurring) (citing
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)), and even then, according
to Justice Stewart, only when disclosure would "surely result in direct,
immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people." Id. at
730 (Stewart, J. and White, J. concurring). Even without a consensus from
the Supreme Court on how exacting the standard should be, it is clear
from New York Times that national security alone is insufficient without
more. Yet that is exactly what both the President and the BXA have
offered here as the justification for the regulation: national security
and foreign policy interests. Exec. Order No. 13026, 61 Fed. Reg. 58767;
61 Fed. Reg. 68573. Particularly now, when none of the encryption items
subject to export controls under the EAR have military applications, a
less amorphous rationale is required.21
Nor is it necessary that an item be regulated for its content to
make the regulations function as a prior restraint on speech. It is
enough that they are directed at expressive activity. As the plurality
opinion in FW/PBS suggests, even a licensing scheme with a content-
neutral purpose must still contain adequate procedural safeguards in
order to be constitutional.22 Thus, without deciding whether the
regulations are content-based, the court turns to the procedural
safeguards afforded under the encryption regulations. As noted above,
the Court in FW/PBS read Freedman to hold that for a licensing scheme
to be constitutional, 1) the licensor must make the licensing decision
within a
26
specific and reasonable period of time; 2) there must be prompt judicial
review; and 3) the censor must bear the burden of going to court to
uphold a licensing denial and once there bears the burden of justifying
the denial. FW/PBS, 493 U.S. at 227-28 (citing Freedman, 380 U.S. at
58-60). The new regulations, like the ITAR, are woefully inadequate.
The EAR provides that license applications will be resolved or
referred to the President within 90 days.23 15 C.F.R. § 750.4(a).
However, there is no time limit on an application that has been referred
to the President. If a license is denied, the agency provides an internal
appeals process, 15 C.F.R. Pt. 756, but the only time-limit on the
appeals decision is that the agency "shall decide an appeal within a
reasonable time after receipt of the appeal." 15 C.F.R. § 756.2(c)(1).
That decision is final and not subject to judicial review. 15 C.F.R.
§ 756.2(c)(2); 50 U.S.C. App. § 2412(e); see also United States v.
Bozarov, 974 F.2d 1037, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 1992) (EAA's preclusion of
judicial review does not violate nondelegation doctrine), cert. denied,
507 U.S. 917 (1993).24 And most important, and most lacking, are any
standards for deciding an application. The EAR reviews applications for
licenses "on a case-by-case basis" and appears to impose no limits on
agency discretion. 61 Fed. Reg. 68581 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R.
§ 742.15(b)). Like the ordinance in Lakewood, where the mayor could deny
a permit without any more justification than that it was not in the public
interest, nothing in the regulations prevents the BXA from justifying a
denial of an application by stating that it is contrary to national
security and foreign policy interests.25 As the Court noted in Lakewood,
these are illusory constraints. 486 U.S. at 769; see also Desert Outdoor
Advertising, Inc. v. City of Moreno Valley, 103 F.3d 814, 818 (9th Cir.
1996) (finding billboard permit requirement unconstitutional because
city officials had "discretion to deny a permit on the basis of ambiguous
and subjective reasons"). This court has stated previously that while it
is mindful of the problems inherent in judicial review of licensing
decisions regarding cryptographic software, both with respect to the
sophistication of the technology and the potentially classified nature
of the licensing considerations, there must still be some review
available if the export controls on cryptographic software are to survive
the presumption against prior restraints on speech. In this case, for the
reasons enumerated, the court concludes that the encryption regulations
are an
27
unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment.
2. Controls on Encryption Technology
Plaintiff does not distinguish the regulation of encryption
technology -- as opposed to commodities and software -- for the purposes
of prior restraint analysis. With respect to vagueness, the only
provision he addresses as vague is "technical assistance." 15 C.F.R.
§ 744.9(a). Defendants allege that plaintiff lacks standing to challenge
the controls on technology because they have not been applied to him and
any injury is speculative. Even if plaintiff is found to have standing,
defendants contend that a facial challenge is still inappropriate because
United States v. Edler Indus., Inc., 579 F.2d 516, 520 (9th Cir. 1978),
found that the technical data provisions of the predecessor to the AECA
survived constitutional challenge with a narrowing construction.
It does not appear necessary to address the vagueness argument
advanced by plaintiff, or any of the other constitutional arguments, as
the bulk of the encryption regulations have been adjudged to constitute
a prior restraint on speech. The First Amendment does not "render
inapplicable the rule that a federal court should not extend its
invalidation of a statute further than is necessary to dispose of the
case before it." Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 502
(1984) (citation omitted). The restrictions on technical assistance under
the new regulations prohibit a person from providing technical assistance
without a license to foreign persons "with the intent to aid a foreign
person in the development or manufacture outside the United States of
encryption commodities and software that, if of United States origin,
would be controlled for 'EI' reasons under ECCN 5A002 or 5D002." 61 Fed.
Reg. 68584 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 744.9). The technical
assistance provision also states that the "mere teaching or discussion
of information about cryptography" does not establish the requisite
intent. 61 Fed. Reg. 68584 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 744.9(a)).
However cryptic this provision might be viewed in relation to the more
expansive exemptions for educational information and fundamental research
elsewhere in the regulations, because it is dependent on the definitions
and regulation of encryption commodities and software, it is
unenforceable under the court's holding above.
28
III. Proper Defendants
Plaintiff named three additional defendants in his supplemental
complaint -- the Departments of Energy ("DOE") and Justice ("DOJ") and
the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") -- because officials from each
are now involved in some way with licensing reviews. 61 Fed. Reg. 68585
(to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 750.3(b)(2)(v)); 15 C.F.R. § 750.4(d)-(e);
15 C.F.R. § 772 (listing committees involved in interagency review and
their members). Plaintiff also contends that these agencies are involved
with overall jurisdictional decisions as well. Press Release, at 4
(stating that after legislative reauthorization of export controls the
Secretaries of Defense and State together with the Attorney General
"shall reexamine whether adequate controls on encryption products can be
maintained under the provisions of the new statute and advise the
Secretary of Commerce of their conclusions as well as any recommendations
for action"). Defendants claim that there is no justification for joining
every agency that participates in the review process and that the
Secretary of Commerce is the only proper defendant.
The court is inclined to agree with defendants. The roles played by
the DOE, DOJ and the CIA are limited to consulting and advising the
Secretary of Commerce who is responsible for final decisions. Even if
those agencies are asked to review any new legislation that may be
passed,26 their roles are advisory. Accordingly, any determination
against the Secretary of Commerce is sufficient and the DOE, DOJ and the
CIA are dismissed as defendants. Furthermore, because the applicable
regulations are no longer implemented by the Department of State, the
Secretary of State is also dismissed.
IV. Scope of Relief
Plaintiff requests that in addition to declaratory relief, the court
issue a permanent injunction against defendants barring nationwide
application of the encryption regulations on the grounds that loss of
First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury, Elrod v. Burns,
427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976), and that he will not be afforded complete
relief unless an injunction extends to students, colleagues and others
not before the court. Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1987).
29
Defendants protest that a nationwide injunction is improper because
relief should be no broader than necessary, Meinhold v. United States
Dept. of Defense, 34 F.3d 1469, 1480 (9th Cir. 1994), and because the
issues are novel and of public importance. Azurin v. Von Raab, 792 F.2d
914, 1915 (9th Cir. 1986).
In Bresgal, the Ninth Circuit found in the absence of a certified
nationwide class that a district court could still order nationwide
relief in order to ensure the prevailing parties were given the relief to
which they were entitled so long as the injunction was directed against a
party to the action, in that case the Secretary of Labor. 843 F.2d at
1170-71. However, this holding must still be weighed against the rule
that an injunction should be no more burdensome than necessary to afford
complete relief. Meinhold, 34 F.3d at 1480 (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki,
442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)). In this instance the court, particularly
given its determination of facial invalidity of the regulations, could
indeed order nationwide relief. However, as it did in Bernstein II, the
court concludes that because the legal questions at issue are novel,
complex and of public importance, the injunctive relief should be as
narrow as possible pending appeal. See Azurin, 792 F.2d at 1915. While
declaratory relief should be sufficient, plaintiff should not fear
prosecution for teaching and writing about encryption. Nor should
plaintiff have to conduct his scholarly activities under stipulation with
the government. Accordingly, defendants are enjoined from enforcing the
regulations against plaintiff or against anyone who seeks to use, discuss
or publish plaintiff's encryption program.
V. Effect of Previous Order
Defendants ask the court to vacate its order in Bernstein II as the
controversy has shifted to the new regulations and Category XIII of the
USML no longer covers plaintiff's software. Plaintiff argues the court
should reaffirm its previous order because the President left open the
possibility that jurisdiction would be shifted back to the Department of
State if export controls under the Commerce Department prove inadequate.
The likelihood of the jurisdiction being transferred back to the State
Department seems too remote to justify maintaining an order that no
longer applies to the
30
controversy before the court. While the government cannot avoid the
constitutional deficiencies of its regulations by rotating oversight of
them from department to department, the court does not believe that such
was the intent here. Moreover, should the President direct that export
controls on encryption be regulated under the ITAR once more, plaintiff
can come back before this court at that time. However, given the
continuing validity of the rationale in Bernstein II to the present
order, neither is it necessary to vacate that decision. Accordingly, the
court's holding in Bernstein II, in so far as it relates to the ITAR, is
hereby superseded by the present order.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons,
1) plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part in accordance with the foregoing;
2) defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED in part and
GRANTED in part in accordance with the foregoing;
3) the Departments of State, Energy, Justice and the Central
Intelligence Agency are dismissed as defendants;
4) the court's holding in Bernstein v. United States Dept. of State,
945 F. Supp. 1279, is superseded by this order;
5) the court declares that the Export Administration Regulations,
15 C.F.R. Pt. 730 et seq.(l997) and all rules, policies and practices
promulgated or pursued thereunder insofar as they apply to or require
licensing for encryption and decryption software and related devices and
technology are in violation of the First Amendment on the grounds of
prior restraint and are, therefore, unconstitutional as discussed above,
and shall not be applied to plaintiff's publishing of such items,
including scientific papers, algorithms or computer programs;
6) defendants are permanently enjoined from doing or causing to be
done the following acts:
a) further and future enforcement, operation or execution of
the statutes, regulations, rules, policies and practices declared
unconsitutional under this order, including criminal or civil
31
prosecutions with respect to plaintiff or anyone who uses, discusses or
publishes or seeks to use, discuss or publish plaintiff's encryption
program and related materials described in paragraph 5) of this order;
and
b) threatening, detaining, prosecuting, discouraging or
otherwise interfering with plaintiff or any other person described in
paragraph 6) above in the exercise of their federal constitutional
rights as declared in this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[Signature]
Date August 25, 1997 MARILYN HALL PATEL
United States District Judge
Northern District of California
32
ENDNOTES
1. Some of the information in this section is taken directly from the
court's previous opinions in this action, Bernstein v. United States
Dept. of State, 922 F. Supp. 1426 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (Bernstein I), and
Bernstein v. United States Dept. of State, 945 F. Supp. 1279 (N.D. Cal.
1996) (Bernstein II); other background information is left out or
condensed and reference is made to those opinions. Additional information
comes from the parties' current submissions or other sources as indicated.
2. In symmetric cryptography the encryption key is the same as the
decryption key. Asymmetric, or public-key, cryptography uses different
keys for encryption and decryption and generally only the encryption key
is disclosed.
3. For a full description of the ITAR, see Bernstein I, 922 F. Supp. at
1429-30 and Bernstein II, 945 F. Supp. at 1283-84.
4. Source code is the text of a source program and is generally written
in a high-level language that is two or more steps removed from machine
language which is a low-level language. High-level languages are closer
to natural language than low-level languages which direct the functioning
of the computer. Source code must be translated by way of a translating
program into machine language before it can be read by a computer. The
object code is the output of that translation. It is possible to write a
source program in high-level language without knowing about the actual
functions of the computer that carry out the program. Encyclopedia of
Computer Science 962, 1263-64 (Anthony Ralston & Edwin D. Reilly eds.,
3d ed. l995).
5. Again, a more detailed description of plaintiff's communications with
the ODTC appears in Bernstein I, 922 F. Supp. at 1430, and Bernstein II,
945 F. Supp. at 1284-85. Those opinions also describe the confusion
surrounding the determination of the academic paper.
6. These items are also controlled for national security and
anti-terrorism reasons. 61 Fed. Reg. 68586-87 (to be codified at 15
C.F.R. § 774 supp. 1).
7. Under Part 772 of the new regulations which is dedicated to
definitions of terms, the term "commodity" contains the following note:
Note that the provisions of the EAR applicable to the control of
software (e.g. publicly available provisions) are not applicable to
encryption software. Encryption software is controlled because, like
the items controlled under ECCN 5A002, it has a functional capacity
to encrypt information on a computer system, and not because of any
informational or theoretical value that such software may reflect,
contain or represent, or that its export may convey to others abroad.
61 Fed. Reg. 68585 (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. Pt. 772).
8. Encryption source code is defined as "[a] precise set of operating
instructions to a computer that, when compiled, allows for the execution
of an encryption function on a computer." Encryption object code is
defined as "[c]omputer programs containing an encryption source code that
has been compiled into a form of code that can be directly executed by a
computer to perform an encryption function." 61 Fed. Reg. 68585 (to be
codified at 15 C.F.R. Pt. 772).
9. This provision notes "that the mere teaching or discussion of
information about cryptography, including, for example, in an academic
setting, by itself would not establish the intent described in this
section, even where foreign persons are present." 61 Fed. Reg. 68584
(to be codified at 15 C.F.R. § 744.9(a)).
33
10. The introductory information about the new regulations includes the
following with respect to the exception for printed materials: "The
administration continues to review whether and to what extent scannable
encryption source or object code in printed form should be subject to the
EAR and reserves the option to impose export controls on such software
for national security and foreign policy reasons." 61 Fed. Reg. 68575.
11. At oral argument plaintiff retreated from his position that the
ultra vires claim was directed at the President. However, Count VI of
plaintiff's supplemental complaint clearly alleges that the President's
actions exceeded his authority under the IEEPA.
12. In fact, due to the significance of the issues involved, the Court
granted certiorari prior to judgment and ordered expedited briefing.
13. The Ninth Circuit on at least one occasion has declined to endorse
the Chamber of Commerce decision. Alameda Newspapers, Inc. v. City of
Oakland, 95 F.3d 1406, 1419 (9th Cir. 1996).
14. In fact, as defendants point out, when the TWEA was amended and the
IEEPA enacted (as Title II of the same bill), the House Report on the
legislation indicated that while it rejected a suggestion by the
committee to make the EAA permanent legislation, the committee expected
that in the case of future lapses of the EAA "the authority of Title II
of this bill could be used to continue the Export Administration
Regulations in effect if, and to the extent that, the President declared
a national emergency as a result of such lapse according to the
procedures of the National Emergencies Act." H.R. Rep. No. 95-459, at 3
(1977).
15. Admittedly, in both of those cases review was precluded in large part
because the Court found that the authorizing statutes at issue granted
broad discretion to the President. However, this action is not so
different as to allow a court to review what the Ninth Circuit has found
to be the extensive discretion afforded by section 5(b) of the TWEA,
which was essentially reenacted as section 1702 of the IEEPA. Both
sections 1701 and 1702 provide little guidance with which to judge the
actions taken by the President. Where "the Act provides no standards by
which to judge the exercise of discretion by the Executive Branch, we
cannot subject that exercise of discretion to judicial review." Medina
v. Clinton, 86 F.3d 155, 158 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Dalton, 114 S.Ct.
at 1728).
16. Since the EAA has expired, the "sole basis for the regulations" is
the Executive Order, which itself is premised on the IEEPA. Spawr, 685
F.2d at 1080.
17. Even assuming the exemption excludes from regulation only those items
designated before April 30, 1994, many software products were regulated
at that time. That being so, there is no support for the contention that
software generally would fall within the exemption.
18. Portions of the court's analysis of prior restraint cases in [sic]
taken directly from its opinion in Bernstein II, 945 F. Supp. at 1286-90.
19. In their motion for reconsideration, defendants concede that the
"essential requirements that previously applied to encryption source code
under the ITAR would continue under the EAR." Df. Motion for
Reconsideration, at 2. The government also acknowledged at oral argument
that the issues before the court were basically unchanged.
20. Defendants again spend a great deal of energy arguing that encryption
source code is not speech by citing to all the undisputed facts that show
its functional capacity -- its ability to actually secure communication;
Df. Mem. in Support, at 9-10. Defendants argue that just because "a
program may be understood by those trained in programming does not negate
the functional nature
34
of the program, nor render it a mere 'idea' ...." Df. Mem. in Opp., at 5.
Again, the court does not disagree that encryption software is highly
functional, but functionality does not remove it from the realm of
speech. Just because an idea is functional does not "negate" its
expressiveness. Indeed, it is functional speech. Programming is not, as
defendants would have it, merely mechanical. It is both an art and a
science. "[A] computer program is not just a way of getting a computer
to perform operations but rather . . . is a novel formal medium for
expressing ideas about methodology." Plaintiff. Mem. in Opp., at 6 n.15
(quoting Abelson and Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer
Programs, preface (1985)).
21. One might make the argument that encryption software could be validly
regulated for its "secondary effects," much like adult theaters were in
Young v. American Mini-Theaters, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1975), and Renton v.
Playtime Theaters, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986), where the Supreme Court
upheld zoning ordinances aimed at the secondary effects of such theaters
in the surrounding community. However, the secondary effects rationale
has never been extended beyond sexually explicit speech. See Roos v.
Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) (refusing to apply the rationale to political
speech). See also Reno, 97 C.D.O.S. at 5002 (considering the secondary
effects doctrine in relation to a statute regulating speech on the
Internet).
22. In FW/PBS Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Stevens and Kennedy,
stated:
Because we conclude that the city's licensing scheme lacks adequate
procedural safeguards, we do not reach the issue decided by the
Court of Appeals whether the ordinance is properly viewed as a
content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction aimed at
secondary effects arising out of the sexually oriented businesses.
FW/PBS, 493 U.S. at 223.
23. Given the other more obvious deficiencies in the procedural aspects
of the regulations, the court does not consider whether 90 days is fast
enough given the demands in the field of cryptography.
24. To the extent the EAR are authorized by the IEEPA, that statute
does not appear to preclude judicial review. Milena Ship Management Co.
Ltd. v. Newcomb, 804 F. SUPP. 846, 850 n.2 (E.D.La. 1992) (nothing in
IEEPA provides clear evidence of intent to preclude judicial review).
However, if the EAR are authorized exclusively by Executive Order 13026,
that order seems to preclude judicial review. Exec. Order No. 13026, 61
Fed. Reg. 58768.
25. As the court discussed in Bernstein II with respect to the ITAR,
some of the dangers of a standardless licensing scheme had already been
realized. According to the NRC Report, the risk of discriminatory
treatment associated with such schemes was reflected in the Report's
comments that companies were reluctant to express their full
dissatisfaction with the rules and implementation of export controls
over cryptographic products for fear that "any explicit connection
between critical comments and their company might result in unfavorable
treatment of a future application for an export license for one of their
products." NRC Report at 4-29.
26. It is not clear from the Press Release accompanying the President's
Executive Order 13026 whether the review those agencies are to provide is
limited to the enactment of new legislation or whether they will also
review the new regulations.
[End]
Source: Hardcopy from Greg Broiles (http://www.parrhesia.com)
Digitized and hypertexted by JYA/Urban Deadline