United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review

Last updated
United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
(F.I.S.C.R.)
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Seal.png
Location Washington, D.C.
Appeals to Supreme Court of the United States
Appeals from
EstablishedOctober 25, 1978
Authority Article III court
Created by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
50 U.S.C.   § 1803
Composition method Chief Justice appointment
Judges3
Judge term length7 years
Presiding Judge Stephen A. Higginson
www.fisc.uscourts.gov/FISCR

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) is a U.S. federal court whose sole purpose is to review denials of applications for electronic surveillance warrants (called FISA warrants) by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC). The FISCR was established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (known as FISA for short) and consists of a panel of three judges. Like the FISC, the FISCR is not an adversarial court; rather, the only party to the court is the federal government, although other parties may submit briefs as amici curiae if they are made aware of the proceedings. Papers are filed and proceedings are held in secret. Records of the proceedings are kept classified, though copies of the proceedings with sensitive information redacted are very occasionally made public. The government may appeal decisions of the FISCR to the Supreme Court of the United States, which hears appeals on a discretionary basis.

Contents

There is no provision for review or appeal of a grant of a warrant application, only of a denial. That is because in both the FISC and the FISCA, the government the party who seeks a warrant to conduct surveillance is the only party before the court, and it is unusual for anyone else to become aware of the warrant application in the first place.

The judges of the Court of Review are district or appellate federal judges, appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States for seven-year terms. Their terms are staggered so that there are at least two years between consecutive appointments. A judge may be appointed only once to either the FISCR or the FISC.

Notable cases

In re Sealed Case

The FISCR was called into session for the first time in 2002 in a case referred to as In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 . The FISC had granted a FISA warrant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) but had placed restrictions on its use; specifically, the FBI was denied the ability to use evidence gathered under the warrant in criminal cases. FISCR allowed a coalition of civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to file amicus briefs opposing the FBI's new surveillance programs. The FISCR held that the restrictions that the FISC had placed on the warrant violated both FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act and that there was no constitutional requirement for those restrictions.

In re Directives

In August 2008, the FISCR affirmed the constitutionality of the Protect America Act of 2007 in a heavily redacted opinion, In re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, released on January 15, 2009. [1] [2] [3] In re Directives was only the second such public ruling since FISA's enactment. [4]

In re Certification of Questions of Law

In May 2018, the FISCR affirmed an en banc order holding that three public interest groups had "standing to seek disclosure of the classified portions of the opinions at issue." The three groups were the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capital, and the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale University. The government had argued that none of the groups had a legal right to compel disclosure of FISC opinions. The FISCR disagreed, holding: "The flaw in the government's position is that it attacks the merits of the movants' claim rather than whether the claim is judicially cognizable. In other words, the government confuses the question of whether the movants have a First Amendment right of access to FISC opinions with the question of whether they have a right merely to assert that claim. Courts have repeatedly pointed out that there is a distinction between whether the plaintiff has shown injury for purposes of standing and whether the plaintiff can succeed on the merits." [5]

Composition

Note that the start dates of service for some judges conflict among sources. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Current membership

NameCourtStartEndPresiding StartPresiding EndFISCR Appointer
(Chief Justice)
Original Appointer
(President)
Stephen Higginson 5th Cir. February 25, 2021May 18, 2027August 16, 2023present John Roberts Barack Obama
Timothy Tymkovich 10th Cir. November 1, 2023May 18, 2030 John Roberts George W. Bush
Lisa Godbey Wood S.D. Ga. November 1, 2023May 18, 2030 John Roberts George W. Bush

Former members

NameCourtStartEndPresiding StartPresiding EndFISCR Appointer
(Chief Justice)
Original Appointer
(President)
Morris Arnold 8th Cir. May 19, 2008August 31, 2013September 10, 2012August 31, 2013 John Roberts George H. W. Bush
Bobby Baldock 10th Cir. June 17, 1992May 18, 1998 William Rehnquist Ronald Reagan
James Barrett 10th Cir. May 19, 1979May 18, 1984 Warren Burger Richard Nixon
William Bryson Fed. Cir. May 19, 2011May 18, 2018September 10, 2013May 18, 2018 John Roberts Bill Clinton
José Cabranes 2nd Cir. August 9, 2013May 18, 2020May 19, 2018May 18, 2020 John Roberts Bill Clinton
John Field 4th Cir. May 19, 1982May 18, 1989 Warren Burger Richard Nixon
Ralph Guy 6th Cir. October 8, 1998May 18, 2005May 19, 2001May 18, 2005 William Rehnquist Ronald Reagan
Leon Higginbotham 3rd Cir. May 19, 1979May 18, 1986May 19, 1979May 18, 1986 Warren Burger Jimmy Carter
Edward Leavy 9th Cir. September 25, 2001May 18, 2008May 19, 2005May 18, 2008 William Rehnquist Ronald Reagan
George MacKinnon D.C. Cir. May 19, 1979May 18, 1982 Warren Burger Richard Nixon
Robert Miller N.D. Ind. July 8, 2020September 15, 2023 John Roberts Ronald Reagan
Edward Northrop D. Md. January 11, 1985January 10, 1992 Warren Burger John F. Kennedy
Paul Roney 11th Cir. September 13, 1994May 18, 2001September 13, 1994May 18, 2001 William Rehnquist Richard Nixon
Collins Seitz 3rd Cir. March 19, 1987March 18, 1994March 19, 1987March 18, 1994 William Rehnquist Lyndon Johnson
Bruce Selya 1st Cir. October 8, 2005May 18, 2012May 19, 2008May 18, 2012 John Roberts Ronald Reagan
David Sentelle D.C. Cir. May 19, 2018September 15, 2023May 19, 2020September 15, 2023 John Roberts Ronald Reagan
Laurence Silberman D.C. Cir. June 18, 1996May 18, 2003 William Rehnquist Ronald Reagan
Richard Tallman 9th Cir. January 27, 2014January 26, 2021 John Roberts Bill Clinton
Robert Warren E.D. Wis. October 30, 1989May 18, 1996 William Rehnquist Richard Nixon
Ralph Winter 2nd Cir. November 14, 2003May 18, 2010 John Roberts Ronald Reagan

Seat succession

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court</span> U.S. federal court

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), also called the FISA Court, is a U.S. federal court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act</span> 1978 United States federal law

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that establishes procedures for the surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence on domestic soil.

The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has ten titles, each containing numerous sections. Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures granted increased powers of surveillance to various government agencies and bodies. This title has 25 sections, with one of the sections containing a sunset clause which sets an expiration date, December 31, 2005, for most of the title's provisions. This was extended twice: on December 22, 2005 the sunset clause expiration date was extended to February 3, 2006 and on February 2 of the same year it was again extended, this time to March 10.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Project MINARET</span> National Security Agency surveillance operation

Project MINARET was a domestic espionage project operated by the National Security Agency (NSA), which, after intercepting electronic communications that contained the names of predesignated US citizens, passed them to other government law enforcement and intelligence organizations. Intercepted messages were disseminated to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD), and the Department of Defense. The project was a sister project to Project SHAMROCK.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)</span> Part of Terrorist Surveillance Program

NSA warrantless surveillance — also commonly referred to as "warrantless-wiretapping" or "-wiretaps" — was the surveillance of persons within the United States, including U.S. citizens, during the collection of notionally foreign intelligence by the National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. In late 2001, the NSA was authorized to monitor, without obtaining a FISA warrant, phone calls, Internet activities, text messages and other forms of communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lays within the U.S.

In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717 (2002), is a per curiam decision by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in which it reviewed restrictions that were placed upon a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) on May 17, 2002. The Court of Review reversed the FISC's restrictions by stating that they "are not required by FISA or the Constitution." The opinion represents the first meeting of and first opinion by the Court of Review. For the purposes of review, the FISC's modification of the requested application worked as a "denial" and thus gave the Court of Review jurisdiction to take the case.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency</i>

American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 493 F.3d 644, is a case decided July 6, 2007, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to bring the suit against the National Security Agency (NSA), because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorist Surveillance Program</span> NSA program

The Terrorist Surveillance Program was an electronic surveillance program implemented by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was part of the President's Surveillance Program, which was in turn conducted under the overall umbrella of the War on Terrorism. The NSA, a signals intelligence agency, implemented the program to intercept al Qaeda communications overseas where at least one party is not a U.S. person. In 2005, The New York Times disclosed that technical glitches resulted in some of the intercepts including communications which were "purely domestic" in nature, igniting the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. Later works, such as James Bamford's The Shadow Factory, described how the nature of the domestic surveillance was much, much more widespread than initially disclosed. In a 2011 New Yorker article, former NSA employee Bill Binney said that his colleagues told him that the NSA had begun storing billing and phone records from "everyone in the country."

<i>Hepting v. AT&T</i>

Hepting v. AT&T, 439 F.Supp.2d 974, was a class action lawsuit argued before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of customers of the telecommunications company AT&T. The plaintiffs alleged that AT&T permitted and assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in unlawfully monitoring the personal communications of American citizens, including AT&T customers, whose communications were routed through AT&T's network.

Warrantless searches are searches and seizures conducted without court-issued search warrants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protect America Act of 2007</span>

The Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA),, is a controversial amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on August 5, 2007. It removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 reauthorized many provisions of the Protect America Act in Title VII of FISA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008</span> United States Law

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, also called the FAA and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, is an Act of Congress that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It has been used as the legal basis for surveillance programs disclosed by Edward Snowden in 2013, including PRISM.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rosemary M. Collyer</span> American judge (born 1945)

Rosemary Mayers Collyer is an inactive Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and a former judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Robertson (judge)</span> American judge (1938–2019)

James Robertson was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from 1994 until his retirement in June 2010. Robertson also served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court from 2002 until December 2005, when he resigned from that court in protest against warrantless wiretapping.

<i>Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice</i>

EPIC v. Department of Justice is a 2014 case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia between the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) where EPIC seeks court action to enforce their Freedom of Information Act request for documents that the Department of Justice has withheld pertaining to George W. Bush's authorization of NSA warrantless surveillance.

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Amnesty International USA and others lacked standing to challenge section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.

<i>Klayman v. Obama</i> American federal court case

Klayman v. Obama, 957 F.Supp.2d 1, was a decision by the United States District Court for District of Columbia finding that the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk phone metadata collection program was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The ruling was later overturned on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the constitutional implications of NSA surveillance unaddressed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barack Obama on mass surveillance</span> Overview of the statements of former U.S. president Barack Obama on mass surveillance

Former U.S. President Barack Obama favored some levels of mass surveillance. He has received some widespread criticism from detractors as a result. Due to his support of certain government surveillance, some critics have said his support violated acceptable privacy rights, while others dispute or attempt to provide justification for the expansion of surveillance initiatives under his administration.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper</i> American federal court case

American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787, was a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its affiliate, the New York Civil Liberties Union, against the United States federal government as represented by then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The ACLU challenged the legality and constitutionality of the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk phone metadata collection program.

In Re Electronic Privacy Information Center, 134 S.Ct. 638 (2013), was a direct petition to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the National Security Agency's (NSA) telephony metadata collection program. On July 8, 2013, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition, or a writ of certiorari, to vacate an order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in which the court compelled Verizon to produce telephony metadata records from all of its subscribers' calls and deliver those records to the NSA. On November 18, 2013, the Supreme Court denied EPIC's petition.

References

  1. In re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , no. 08-01 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, Jan 15, 2009)
  2. Risen, James; Lichtblau, Eric (January 16, 2009). "Court Affirms Wiretapping Without Warrants". New York Times, January 15, 2009. Retrieved January 16, 2009.
  3. Perez, Evan (January 16, 2009). "Court Backs U.S. Wiretapping". Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2009. Retrieved January 16, 2009.
  4. "Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping". Washington Post, January 15, 2009. January 16, 2009. Retrieved January 16, 2009.
  5. In re Certification of Questions of Law , no. 18-01 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, Mar 16, 2018)
  6. "Current Membership - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review".
  7. "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 2013 Membership". irp.fas.org. Retrieved 2024-02-23.
  8. "Policy Response to Intelligence Revelations Lags".
  9. "FISC FISCR Judges Revised May 29 2020 200608" (PDF). www.fisc.uscourts.govF. Retrieved February 23, 2024.
  10. "Judge Paul H. Roney". Eleventh Circuit. n.d. Archived from the original on September 23, 2006. Retrieved June 14, 2013.
  11. "FISC FISCR Judges August 2020 200824" (PDF). www.fisc.uscourts.gov. Retrieved February 23, 2024.

Further reading