Section 1803 - Designation of judges

31 Citing briefs

  1. Electronic Frontier Foundation v. United States Department of Justice

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    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.

  2. Electronic Frontier Foundation v. United States Department of Justice

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    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.

  3. Electronic Frontier Foundation v. United States Department of Justice

    Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

    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.

  4. Twitter, Inc. v. Lynch et al

    MOTION to Dismiss

    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.

  5. USA v. Muhtorov et al

    RESPONSE to Motion

    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.

  6. Smith v. Obama et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    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.

  7. First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles et al v. National Security Agency et al

    MOTION to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

    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.

  8. Klayman v. Obama et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    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.

  9. Klayman et al v. Obama et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    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.

  10. American Civil Liberties Union et al v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 58 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment., 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law In Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Document

    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.