ACLU Joins Defense of Neo-Nazi Plotter, Citing "Government’s Secretive Surveillance"
In a shocking move, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has joined the defense team of Brandon Clint Russell, a neo-Nazi accused of plotting to sabotage Baltimore’s electrical grid. But don’t be fooled – this is not about defending the indefensible. The ACLU is using this case to challenge the government’s secretive surveillance practices, which they claim have been used to target Americans unfairly.
According to the ACLU, Russell was subjected to warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the government to collect communications data on foreign targets. But if US persons communicate with these targets, their communications can be swept up in the surveillance as well. The ACLU is arguing that Russell has "reason to believe" that the government intercepted his communications and subjected him to a warrantless "backdoor search" by querying the Section 702 databases.
This is not the first time the ACLU has challenged the government’s surveillance practices. In 2024, they successfully argued in a court case that the NSA’s mass collection of phone records was unconstitutional. But this case is different – it’s not about the NSA’s phone records program, it’s about the FBI’s use of Section 702 to spy on Americans without a warrant.
The ACLU’s decision to join Russell’s defense has sparked outrage among many who believe that the neo-Nazi’s ideology is morally reprehensible. But the ACLU is not defending Russell’s beliefs – they are defending his right to due process and challenging the government’s use of secretive surveillance practices.
As Ashley Gorski, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a statement, "We have long argued that Section 702 surveillance is unconstitutional and that it disproportionately impacts people of color and Muslims at home and abroad. Especially as recently expanded and reauthorized by Congress, this spying authority could be further abused by a future administration against political opponents, protest movements, and civil society organizations, as well as racial and religious minorities, abortion providers, and LGBTQ people."
The ACLU’s decision to join Russell’s defense is a bold move that highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the government’s surveillance practices. As the debate over Section 702 continues, it’s clear that the ACLU is willing to challenge the government’s actions, even if it means defending someone with odious beliefs.
