FISA expressly states that a court “shall” review FISA materials ex parte and in camera “if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(0, 1825(g). The Attorney General has submitted such an affidavit [Dkt.

This declaration is sufficient to justify an ex parte, in camera review of the FISA application and materials. See 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f). That said, such a review puts a judge in an unusual position.

If the government plans to use the information to prosecute a defendant, federal prosecutors must notify the court and the “aggrieved person,” as the defendant is called, that is intends to use or disclose FISA-derived evidence.The Eleventh Circuit pointed out that the “aggrieved person” may then “’move to suppress the evidence obtained or derived from such electronic surveillance [or physical search] on the grounds that – (1) the information was unlawfully obtained; or (2) the surveillance [or physical search] was not made in conformity with an order of authorization or approval.’”Motion to Suppress FISA EvidenceIf the government informs the court the it plans to use the FISA evidence and files an affidavit that public disclosure “would harm the national security of the United States,” the district court must then review all the FISA material in camera and ex parte.Under 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(f), 1825(g), the district court “may disclose to the aggrieved person, under appropriate security precautions and protective orders, portions of the [FISA] application, order, and other materials relating to the [surveillance or search] only where disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the [surveillance or search].”Rigged Process with Few Judicial ProtectionsIt is a rigged process designed to shroud either domestic or international terrorism cases in secrecy, removed from the public eye. We feel that both FISA and the Patriot Act will be used with greater frequency by the current Attorney General Jeff Sessions against Muslims citizens, anti-Trump protestors, or other disfavored groups based on the slightest, or fabricated suspicion that the person is connected to terrorism.

Daoud was indicted for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempting to damage and destroy a building by means of an explosive and soliciting murder for hearing and witness tampering. The government notified him that pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(c) and 1825(d), sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), that it intended to present evidence derived from electronic surveillance conducted under FISA. Defense counsel filed a motion seeking access to the classified materials in support of the FISA warrant applications. The government provided defense counsel with a heavily redacted, unclassified response, and provided the district court with a classified version.