• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Note: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter.
United States Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Court of Review
 
Argued September 9, 2002Decided November 18, 2002In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 Consolidated with02-002 On Motions for Review of Orders of the United StatesForeign Intelligence Surveillance Court(Nos. 02-662 and 02-968) 
Theodore B. Olson
, Solicitor General, argued the cause for appellant the United States,with whom
 John Ashcroft 
, Attorney General,
 Larry D. Thompson
, Deputy Attorney General,
 David S. Kris
, Associate Deputy Attorney General,
 James A. Baker 
, Counsel for IntelligencePolicy, and
 Jonathan L. Marcus
, Attorney Advisor, were on the briefs.
 Ann Beeson
,
 Jameel Jaffer 
,
Steven R. Shapiro
, for
amicus curiae
American CivilLiberties Union, with whom
James X. Dempsey
for Center for Democracy and Technology,
Kate Martin
for Center for National Security Studies,
 David L. Sobel
for Electronic PrivacyInformation Center, and
 Lee Tien
for Electronic Frontier Foundation, were on the brief.
 John D. Cline
,
Zachary A. Ives
, and
Joshua Dratel
, for
amicus curiae
NationalAssociation of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
 
1
Joining the ACLU on its brief are the Center for Democracy and Technology, Centerfor National Security Studies, Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Electronic FrontierFoundation.
2
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required toIntercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26,2001).Before: G
UY
,
Senior Circuit Judge, Presiding
; S
ILBERMAN
and L
EAVY
,
Senior Circuit  Judges
.Opinion for the Court filed
Per Curiam
.
Per Curiam
: This is the first appeal from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courtto the Court of Review since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA),50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1862 (West 1991 and Supp. 2002)
 ,
in 1978. This appeal is brought by theUnited States from a FISA court surveillance order which imposed certain restrictions on thegovernment. Since the government is the only party to FISA proceedings, we have acceptedbriefs filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
1
and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as
amici curiae
.Not surprisingly this case raises important questions of statutory interpretation, andconstitutionality. After a careful review of the briefs filed by the government and
amici
, weconclude that FISA, as amended by the Patriot Act,
2
supports the government’s position, andthat the restrictions imposed by the FISA court are not required by FISA or the Constitution.We therefore remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
 
3
I.
The court’s decision from which the government appeals imposed certain requirementsand limitations accompanying an order authorizing electronic surveillance of an “agent of aforeign power” as defined in FISA. There is no disagreement between the government and theFISA court as to the propriety of the electronic surveillance; the court found that thegovernment had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign powerand otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA. The government’s application for asurveillance order contains detailed information to support its contention that the target, whois a United States person, is aiding, abetting, or conspiring with others in internationalterrorism. [
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...