Filed September 22, 2016
For example, FISA, as amended by the USA FREEDOM Act, now requires the FISC to appoint amicus curiae to assist it in the consideration of matters that in the opinion of the court present a “novel or significant interpretation of the law, unless the court issues a finding that such appointment is not appropriate.” 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2). The imposition of that requirement on the FISC allows the Government to readily identify those orders, opinions, and decisions that, in the opinion of the FISC, present novel or significant interpretations of law.
Filed September 22, 2016
Id. (quoting 50 U.S.C. §1803(i)(2)). As a result, the decisions, orders, and opinions of the FISC and FISCR issued on or after June 2, 2015 that were responsive to Part 2 of the request were “readily identifiable because they were previously publicly disclosed” pursuant to this statutory mandate.
Filed October 13, 2016
In its current form, fISA explicitly relies on a pool oflocaljudgcs to handle particular kinds of time-sensitive cases. 50 U.S.C. § 1803(c)(l ). This approach is sensible, given the severe security-related limitations on the ability of non-local judges to work on FISC matters in their home districts.
Filed January 9, 2015
Moreover, the FISC, like any other federal court, has “inherent authority . . . to determine or enforce compliance with” its “order[s]” and “rule[s],” and with “procedure[s] approved by [the] court.” 50 U.S.C. § 1803(h). As part of this authority, the FISC can determine the scope of the obligations imposed by its orders or by directives issued pursuant to FISC process, as well as the constitutionality of those orders or directives.
Filed May 9, 2014
11 The FISA Court of Review is composed of three United States District or Circuit Judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. See 50 U.S.C. § 1803(b). 24 Case 1:12-cr-00033-JLK Document 559 Filed 05/09/14 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 97 I i 3.
Filed January 24, 2014
Section 215 includes a scheme providing for judicial review of production orders, but only in limited circumstances. Specifically, it allows “[a] person receiving a production order [to] challenge [its] legality” by filing a petition with the “review pool” of FISC judges designated under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(e)(1) to review such orders. Id.
Filed December 6, 2013
Section 215 includes a scheme providing for judicial review of a production order once it is granted, but only in limited circumstances. Specifically, it allows “[a] person receiving a production order [to] challenge [its] legality” by filing a petition with the “review pool” of FISC judges designated under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(e)(1) to review such orders. Id.
Filed November 12, 2013
Section 215 includes a scheme providing for judicial review of a business records order once it is granted, but only in limited circumstances. Specifically, it allows “[a] person receiving a production order [to] challenge the legality of that order” by filing a petition with the “review pool” of FISC judges designated under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(e)(1) to review production orders under Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 25 Filed 11/12/13 Page 19 of 79 7 Section 215. Id.
Filed November 12, 2013
Section 215 includes a scheme providing for judicial review of a business records order once it is granted, but only in limited circumstances. Specifically, it allows “[a] person receiving a production order [to] challenge the legality of that order” by filing a petition with the “review pool” of FISC judges designated under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(e)(1) to review production orders under Case 1:13-cv-00881-RJL Document 21 Filed 11/12/13 Page 19 of 79 7 Section 215. Id.
Filed May 10, 2013
Case 1:11-cv-07562-WHP Document 59 Filed 05/10/13 Page 26 of 33 21 necessary to administer [its] responsibilities.” 50 U.S.C. § 1803(g)(1); see also FISA Ct. R.P. 1. But Congress did not create a new exemption under FOIA when it established the FISC, nor has it delegated to the FISC any authority to create new FOIA exemptions through the FISC’s procedural rules.