View source for United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

{{Short description|U.S. federal court}}
{{Redirect|FISC||Fisc (disambiguation)}}
{{pp-pc|small=yes}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2013}}
{{Infobox U.S. federal court
| court_type      = tribunal
| court_name      = United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
| abbreviation    = F.I.S.C.
| seal            = Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Seal.png
| seal_size       = 150
| courthouse      = [[E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse|E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse]]
| location        = [[Washington, D.C.]]
| appeals_to      = [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review]]
| established     = October 25, 1978
| authority       = Article III
| created_by      = [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]]<br>{{UnitedStatesCode|50|1803|1805}}
| composition     = [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] appointment
| judges_assigned = 11
| term_length     = 7 years
| chief_title     = [[Chief judge (United States)|Presiding Judge]]
| chief           = [[Anthony Trenga]]
| official_site   = {{URL|https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/}}
}}
The '''United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court''' ('''FISC'''), also called the '''FISA Court''', is a [[United States federal courts|U.S. federal court]] established under the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]] of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance [[Warrant (law)|warrants]] against foreign [[spying|spies]] inside the [[United States]] by [[Federal law enforcement in the United States|federal law enforcement]] and [[United States Intelligence Community|intelligence agencies]].
FISA was created by the U.S. [[United States Congress|Congress]] based on the recommendations of the [[United States Senate|Senate]]'s [[Church Committee]], which was convened in 1975 to investigate illicit activities and civil rights abuses by the federal [[United States Intelligence Community|intelligence community]].<ref name="Terrorism">{{cite book |author1=Cohen, David B. |author2=Wells, John Wilson |year=2004 |title=American National Security and Civil Liberties in an Era of Terrorism |url=https://archive.org/details/americannational00cohe |url-access=limited |publisher=[[Palgrave Macmillan]] |location=New York City |isbn=978-1-403-96200-3 |page=[https://archive.org/details/americannational00cohe/page/n42 34]}}</ref> Pursuant to the law, the FISC reviews requests to conduct physical and electronic [[surveillance]] within the U.S. concerning "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of [[espionage]] or [[terrorism]]; such requests are made most often by the [[National Security Agency]] (NSA) and the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (FBI).
From its opening in 1978 until 2009, the court was housed on the sixth floor of the [[Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building]];<ref name="fisc moving" /><ref name="secret-court judges upset" /> since 2009, it has been relocated to the [[E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse]] in [[Washington, D.C.]]<ref name="fisc moving">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/01/AR2009030101730.html |title=Surveillance Court Quietly Moving |first=Del Quentin |last=Wilber |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=March 2, 2009 |access-date=July 10, 2013 |archive-date=March 1, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140301033204/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/01/AR2009030101730.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="secret-court judges upset">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-court-judges-upset-at-portrayal-of-collaboration-with-government/2013/06/29/ed73fb68-e01b-11e2-b94a-452948b95ca8_story.html |title=Secret-Court Judges Upset at Portrayal of 'Collaboration' with Government |author=[[Carol D. Leonnig|Leonnig, Carol D.]]; Nakashima, Ellen; [[Barton Gellman|Gellman, Barton]] |date=June 29, 2013 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=July 10, 2013 |archive-date=June 30, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130630155900/http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-court-judges-upset-at-portrayal-of-collaboration-with-government/2013/06/29/ed73fb68-e01b-11e2-b94a-452948b95ca8_story.html |url-status=live }} "For about 30 years, the court was located on the sixth floor of the Justice Department's headquarters, down the hall from the officials who would argue in front of it. (The court moved to the District's federal courthouse in 2009.)"</ref>
==Warrants==
Each application for one of these surveillance warrants (called a FISA warrant) is made before an individual judge of the court. The court may allow third parties to submit briefs as ''[[amicus curiae|amici curiae]]''. When the [[United States Attorney General|U.S. Attorney General]] determines that an emergency exists, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISC, if the Attorney General or their designee notifies a judge of the court at the time of authorization and applies for a warrant as soon as practicable but not more than seven days after authorization of such surveillance, as required by {{USC|50|1805}}.
If an application is denied by one judge of the court, the federal government is not allowed to make the same application to a different judge of the court but may appeal to the [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review]]. Such appeals are rare: the first appeal from the FISC to the Court of Review was made in 2002 (''[[In re Sealed Case No. 02-001]]''), 24 years after the founding of the court.
FISA warrant requests are rarely denied. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while only four were rejected. Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected requests were all from 2003, and all four were partially granted after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the requests that had to be modified, few were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, and another seven being rejected. Over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court granted 33,942 warrants, with only 12 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests.<ref name=WSJ2012Stats>{{subscription required|date=July 2013}} {{cite news |last=Evan |first=Perez |title=Secret Court's Oversight Gets Scrutiny |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324904004578535670310514616 |access-date=June 20, 2013 |newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |date=June 9, 2013 |archive-date=February 19, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150219000623/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324904004578535670310514616 |url-status=live }}</ref> This does not include the number of warrants that were modified by the FISA court.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Harwood |first=Matthew |title=The terrifying surveillance case of Brandon Mayfield |work=[[Al Jazeera America]] |date=February 8, 2014 |url=http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/the-terrifying-surveillancecaseofbrandonmayfield.html |access-date=December 6, 2014 |archive-date=March 6, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140306030310/http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/the-terrifying-surveillancecaseofbrandonmayfield.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|+ FISA warrant requests for electronic surveillance{{Efn|Excludes physical searches}}<ref name="epic tables">{{cite web |author=Staff |date=May 4, 2012 |title=Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court Orders 1979–2014 |url=http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html |publisher=[[Electronic Privacy Information Center]] |access-date=July 27, 2015 |archive-date=July 23, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150723190947/https://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
! scope="col" | Year
! scope="col" | # Requests<br />submitted
! scope="col" | # Requests<br />approved
! scope="col" | # Requests<br />modified
! scope="col" | # Requests<br />denied
|- style="border-top:2px solid black;"
| 1979<ref name=ARtC>{{cite web |url=https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/index.html#rept |title=FISA Annual Reports to Congress – 1979 |access-date=July 3, 2013 |archive-date=July 21, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130721061724/http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/index.html#rept |url-status=live }}</ref> || 199 || 207 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1980 || 319 || 322 || 1 || 0
|-
| 1981  || 431 || 433 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1982  || 473 || 475 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1983  || 549 || 549 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1984  || 635 || 635 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1985 || 587 || 587 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1986 || 573 || 573 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1987 || 512 || 512 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1988 || 534 || 534 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1989 || 546 || 546 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1990 || 595 || 595 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1991 || 593 || 593 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1992 || 484 || 484 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1993 || 509 || 509 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1994 || 576 || 576 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1995 || 697 || 697 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1996 || 839 || 839 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1997 || 749 || 748 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1998 || 796 || 796 || 0 || 0
|-
| 1999 || 886 || 880 || 0 || 0
|-
| 2000 || 1,005 || 1,012 || 1 || 0
|-
| 2001 ||   932 ||   934 || 4 || 0
|-
| 2002 || 1,228 || 1,228 || <s>&nbsp;2&nbsp;</s> 0 {{Efn|Two modifications that were later reversed by the [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review]], in a case entitled ''[[In re Sealed Case No. 02-001]]''.}} || 0
|-
| 2003 || 1,727 || 1,724 || 79 || 4 {{Efn| All four were later partially granted, after being submitted for reconsideration by the government.}}
|-
| 2004 || 1,758 || 1,754 || 94 || 0
|-
| 2005 || 2,074 || 2,072 || 61 || 0
|-
| 2006 || 2,181 || 2,176 || 73 || 1
|-
| 2007 || 2,371 || 2,370 || 86 || 4
|-
| 2008 || 2,082 || 2,083 ||  2 || 1
|-
| 2009 || 1,329 || 1,320 || 14 || 2
|-
| 2010 || 1,511 || 1,506 || 14 || 0
|-
| 2011 || 1,676 || 1,674 || 30 || 0
|-
| 2012 || 1,789 || 1,788 || 40 || 0
|-
| 2013 || 1,588 || 1,588 || 34 || 0
|-
|2014
|1,379
|1,379
|19
|0
|-
|2015
|1,457
|1,456
|80
|5
|-
|2016
|1,485
|1,451
|310
|34
|-
|2017
|1,372
|948
|310
|34
|- style="font-size:110%;border-top:2px solid black;"
| '''Totals''' || '''41,222''' || '''40,668''' || '''1,252''' || '''85'''
|}
'''Notes:'''
{{Notelist|close}}
On May 17, 2002, the court rebuffed Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]], releasing an opinion that alleged that the FBI and [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] officials had "supplied erroneous information to the court" in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps, including one signed by FBI Director [[Louis J. Freeh]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Shenon |first=Philip |title=Secret Court Says F.B.I. Aides Misled Judges in 75 Cases |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/23/us/secret-court-says-fbi-aides-misled-judges-in-75-cases.html?pagewanted=all |access-date=July 11, 2013 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=August 23, 2002 |archive-date=December 8, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208211717/http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/23/us/secret-court-says-fbi-aides-misled-judges-in-75-cases.html?pagewanted=all |url-status=live }}</ref> Whether this rejection was related to the court starting to require modification of significantly more requests in 2003 is unknown.
On December 16, 2005, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported that the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administration had been conducting surveillance against U.S. citizens without specific approval from the FISA court for each case since 2002.<ref>[[James Risen|Risen, James]]; [[Eric Lichtblau|Lichtblau, Eric]] (December 16, 2005). [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts"]. ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> On December 20, 2005, Judge [[James Robertson (judge)|James Robertson]] resigned his position with the court, apparently in protest of the secret surveillance,<ref>[[Carol D. Leonnig|Leonnig, Carol D.]]; [[Dafna Linzer|Linzer, Dafna]] (December 21, 2005). [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11350.htm]{{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170429224031/http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11350.htm|date=April 29, 2017}}<span>     "Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest</span>{{spaced ndash}}<span> Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel"</span>. ''[[The Washington Post]]'' (via Information Clearing House). Retrieved July 11, 2013.</ref> and later, in the wake of the [[Snowden leaks]] of 2013, criticized the court-sanctioned expansion of the scope of government surveillance and its being allowed to craft a secret body of law.<ref>{{cite web |last=Roberts |first=Dan |date=July 9, 2013 |title=US must fix secret Fisa courts, says top judge who granted surveillance orders |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance |work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=July 11, 2013 |archive-date=August 9, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130809174218/http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance |url-status=live }}</ref> The government's apparent circumvention of the court started prior to the increase in court-ordered modifications to warrant requests.
In 2011, the Obama administration secretly won permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency's use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans' communications in its massive databases. The searches take place under a surveillance program Congress authorized in 2008,<ref name="pl110-261">{{USPL|110|261|Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008}}</ref> under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment Act (Section 1881a et seq in FISA).<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://privacyinternational.org/blog/1439/guide-fisa-ss1881a-law-behind-it-all |title=A guide to FISA §1881a: The law behind it all, Privacy International |access-date=October 19, 2020 |archive-date=October 21, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201021000041/https://privacyinternational.org/blog/1439/guide-fisa-ss1881a-law-behind-it-all |url-status=live }}</ref> Under that law, the target must be a foreigner "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States, and the court must approve the targeting procedures in an order good for one year. But a warrant for each target would thus no longer be required. That means that communications with Americans could be picked up without a court first determining that there is probable cause that the people they were talking to were terrorists, spies or "foreign powers". The FISC also extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years with an extension possible for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence purposes. Both measures were done without public debate or any specific authority from Congress.<ref>{{cite news |last=Nakashima |first=Ellen |title=Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_print.html |access-date=February 3, 2014 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=September 8, 2013 |archive-date=March 31, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140331023304/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_print.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
==Secrecy==
Because of the sensitive nature of its business, the court is a "secret court" – its hearings are closed to the public. While records of the proceedings are kept, they also are unavailable to the public, although copies of some records with [[Classified information in the United States|classified information]] [[Sanitization (classified information)|redacted]] have been made public. Due to the classified nature of its proceedings, usually only attorneys licensed to practice in front of the US government are permitted to appear before the court. Because of the nature of the matters heard before it, court hearings may need to take place at any time of day or night, weekdays or weekends; thus, at least one judge must be "on call" at all times to hear evidence and decide whether or not to issue a warrant.
A heavily redacted version of a 2008 appeal by [[Yahoo!]]<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr082208.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=January 1, 2016 |archive-date=August 3, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190803025150/https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr082208.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> of an order issued with respect to NSA's [[PRISM (surveillance program)|PRISM program]] had been published for the edification of other potential appellants. The identity of the appellant was declassified in June 2013.<ref name=NYT62813>{{cite news |title=Secret Court Declassifies Yahoo's Role in Disclosure Fight |url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/secret-court-declassifies-yahoos-role-in-disclosure-fight/ |access-date=July 11, 2013 |publisher=Bits (blog of [[The New York Times]]) |date=June 28, 2013 |author1=Miller, Claire Cain |author2=Perlroth, Nicole |archive-date=June 30, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130630093953/http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/secret-court-declassifies-yahoos-role-in-disclosure-fight/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
==Criticism==
There has been growing criticism of the court since the [[September 11 attacks|September 11, 2001 attacks]]. This is partly because the court sits ''[[ex parte]]'' – in other words, in the absence of anyone but the judge and the government present at the hearings.<ref name="secret-court judges upset" /> This, combined with the minimal number of requests that are rejected by the court has led experts to characterize it as a [[Rubber stamp (politics)|rubber stamp]] (former [[National Security Agency]] analyst [[Russ Tice]] called it a "[[kangaroo court]] with a rubber stamp").<ref name="tice">{{cite web |author=[[Spencer Ackerman|Ackerman, Spencer]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/fisa-court-judge-verizon-records-surveillance |title=Fisa Chief Judge Defends Integrity of Court over Verizon Records Collection – Reggie Walton Tells ''The Guardian'' Claims Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 'Is a Rubber Stamp [Are] Absolutely False' – Revealed: NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers Daily |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 6, 2013 |access-date=July 11, 2013 |archive-date=July 31, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130731013816/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/fisa-court-judge-verizon-records-surveillance |url-status=live }}</ref> The accusation of being a "rubber stamp" was rejected by FISA Court president [[Reggie B. Walton]] who wrote in a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy: "The annual statistics provided to Congress by the Attorney General  ... – frequently cited to in press reports as a suggestion that the Court's approval rate of application is over 99% – reflect only the number of ''final'' applications submitted to and acted on by the Court. These statistics do not reflect the fact that many applications are altered to prior or final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them."<ref>{{cite web |last=Walton |first=Reggie B. |title=2013-07-29 Letter of FISA Court president Reggie B. Walton to the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick J. Leahy about certain operations of the FISA Court |url=http://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/honorable-patrick-j-leahy |publisher=leahy.senate.gov |access-date=August 25, 2013 |date=July 29, 2013 |archive-date=August 18, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130818103512/http://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/honorable-patrick-j-leahy |url-status=live }}</ref> He added: "There is a rigorous review process of applications submitted by the executive branch, spearheaded initially by five judicial branch lawyers who are national security experts and then by the judges, to ensure that the court's authorizations comport with what the applicable statutes authorize."<ref name="WP20130608">{{cite news |last=Barnes |first=Robert |title=Secrecy of surveillance programs blunts challenges about legality |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secrecy-of-surveillance-programs-blunt-challenges-about-legality/2013/06/07/81da327a-cf9d-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html |access-date=February 12, 2014 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=June 8, 2013 |archive-date=January 26, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140126065554/http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secrecy-of-surveillance-programs-blunt-challenges-about-legality/2013/06/07/81da327a-cf9d-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In a following letter Walton stated that the government had revamped 24.4% of its requests in the face of court questions and demands in time from July 1, 2013, to September 30, 2013.<ref>{{cite web |last=Masnick |first=Mike |title=FISA Court Argues To Senate That It's Not A Rubber Stamp |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131015/18154624888/fisa-court-argues-to-senate-that-its-not-rubber-stamp.shtml |publisher=TechDirt |access-date=October 22, 2013 |date=August 16, 2013 |archive-date=October 20, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020193803/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131015/18154624888/fisa-court-argues-to-senate-that-its-not-rubber-stamp.shtml |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=2013-10-11 Letter of FISC president Reggie B. Walton to U.S. Senator Charles S. Grassley |url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/805311-ranking-member-grassley-letter-131011.html |work=Mike Masnick |publisher=Techdirt |access-date=October 22, 2013 |archive-date=October 23, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131023055927/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/805311-ranking-member-grassley-letter-131011.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="WP20131015" /> This figure became available after Walton decided in the summer of 2013 that the FISC would begin keeping its own tally of how Justice Department warrant applications for electronic surveillance fared – and would track for the first time when the government withdrew or resubmitted those applications with changes.<ref name="WP20131015">{{cite news |last=Leonnig |first=Carol D. |title=Secret court says it is no rubber stamp; work led to changes in U.S. spying requests |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-court-says-it-is-no-rubber-stamp-led-to-changes-in-us-spying-requests/2013/10/15/d52936b0-35a5-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story.html |access-date=October 22, 2013 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=October 15, 2013 |archive-date=December 20, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131220091615/http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-court-says-it-is-no-rubber-stamp-led-to-changes-in-us-spying-requests/2013/10/15/d52936b0-35a5-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Some requests are modified by the court but ultimately granted, while the percentage of denied requests is statistically negligible (11 denied requests out of around 34,000 granted in 35 years – equivalent to 0.03%).<ref name="epic tables" /><ref name="tice" /><ref name="badjoke">{{cite web |author=[[Glenn Greenwald|Greenwald, Glenn]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/03/fisa-court-rubber-stamp-drones |title=The Bad Joke Called 'the FISA Court' Shows How a 'Drone Court' Would Work – Newly Released Data Show That the Government Submitted 1,789 Eavesdropping Requests Last Year, and None Was Rejected |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=May 3, 2013 |access-date=July 12, 2013 |archive-date=September 8, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130908133120/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/03/fisa-court-rubber-stamp-drones |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="tobin">{{cite web |author=Staff |url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/19/toobin.otsc/ |title=Toobin: Bush on 'Questionable Legal Footing' |publisher=[[CNN]] |date=December 19, 2005 |access-date=July 12, 2013 |archive-date=July 19, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130719124815/http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/19/toobin.otsc/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The accusation that the FISC is a "rubber stamp" court was also rejected by [[Robert S. Litt]] (General Counsel of Office of the [[Director of National Intelligence]]): "When [the Government] prepares an application for [a section 215 order, it] first submit[s] to the [FISC] what's called a "read copy", which the court staff will review and comment on. [A]nd they will almost invariably come back with questions, concerns, problems that they see. And there is an iterative process back and forth between the Government and the [FISC] to take care of those concerns so that at the end of the day, we're confident that we're presenting something that the [FISC] will approve. That is hardly a rubber stamp. It's rather extensive and serious judicial oversight of this process."<ref>{{cite web |last=Pauley III |first=William H. |title=United States District Court Southern District of New York: American Civil Liberties Union v. James R. Clapper (13 Civ. 3994) (WHP) -Footnote 3 at page 8: Testimony before the House Pennanent Select Committee on Intelligence, dated Jun. 18, 2013, Robert Litt, General Counsel, Office of the Director of National Intelligence at 17-18 (ECF No. 33-13). |url=https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/order_granting_governments_motion_to_dismiss_and_denying_aclu_motion_for_preliminary_injunction.pdf |publisher=American Civil Liberties Union |access-date=December 28, 2013 |date=December 27, 2013 |archive-date=December 30, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131230231635/https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/order_granting_governments_motion_to_dismiss_and_denying_aclu_motion_for_preliminary_injunction.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
A 2003 [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] ''Interim Report on FBI Oversight in the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary Committee: FISA Implementation Failures'' cited the "unnecessary secrecy" of the court among its "most important conclusions":
{{Blockquote|The secrecy of individual FISA cases is certainly necessary, but this secrecy has been extended to the most basic legal and procedural aspects of the FISA, which should not be secret. This unnecessary secrecy contributed to the deficiencies that have hamstrung the implementation of the FISA. Much more information, including all unclassified opinions and operating rules of the FISA Court and Court of Review, should be made public and/or provided to the Congress.<ref>{{cite book |title=Interim Report on FBI Oversight in the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary Committee: FISA Implementation Failures |author=[[Patrick Leahy|Leahy, Patrick]]; [[Charles Grassley|Grassley, Charles]]; [[Arlen Specter|Specter, Arlen]] |date=February 2003 |url=https://fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fisa.html |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=[[United States Congress|U.S. Congress]] [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] (via [[Federation of American Scientists]]) |access-date=July 12, 2013 |oclc=51857861 |archive-date=January 13, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130113010443/http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fisa.html |url-status=live }}</ref>}}
===Allegations of bias===
In a July 2013 interview, Senator and privacy advocate [[Ron Wyden]] described the FISC warrant process as "the most one-sided legal process in the United States". "I don't know of any other legal system or court that really doesn't highlight anything except one point of view", he said. Later in the interview he said Congress should seek to "diversify some of the thinking on the court".<ref name=wapowyden>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-years-of-obscure-warnings-wyden-gets-sought-after-privacy-debate-in-wake-of-nsa-revelations/2013/07/28/267efd1a-f573-11e2-861b-70461cc1cd24_story.html |title=With NSA Revelations, Sen. Ron Wyden's Vague Warnings About Privacy Finally Become Clear |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=July 28, 2013 |first=David A. |last=Fahrenthold |access-date=July 29, 2013 |archive-date=July 29, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130729185243/http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-years-of-obscure-warnings-wyden-gets-sought-after-privacy-debate-in-wake-of-nsa-revelations/2013/07/28/267efd1a-f573-11e2-861b-70461cc1cd24_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
Elizabeth Goitein, a co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program of the [[Brennan Center for Justice]] at the [[New York University School of Law]], has criticized the court as being too compromised to be an impartial tribunal that oversees the work of the NSA and other U.S. intelligence activities.<ref name="wp-2013-7-5" /> Since the court meets in secret, hears only the arguments of the government prior to deciding a case, and its rulings cannot be appealed or even reviewed by the public, she has argued that: "Like any other group that meets in secret behind closed doors with only one constituency appearing before them, they're subject to capture and bias."<ref name="wp-2013-7-5">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/05/did-you-know-john-roberts-is-also-chief-justice-of-the-nsas-surveillance-state/ |title=Did You Know John Roberts Is Also Chief Justice of the NSA's Surveillance State? |publisher=Wonkblog |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=July 5, 2013 |access-date=July 10, 2013 |author=Klein, Ezra |author-link=Ezra Klein |quote=Only one of the 11 members is a Democrat. |archive-date=July 9, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130709120936/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/05/did-you-know-john-roberts-is-also-chief-justice-of-the-nsas-surveillance-state/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
A related bias of the court results from what critics such as [[Julian Sanchez (writer)|Julian Sanchez]], a scholar at the [[Cato Institute]], have described as the near certainty of the polarization or [[groupthink]] of the judges of the court. Since all of the judges are appointed by the same person (the [[Chief Justice of the United States]]), hear no opposing testimony and feel no pressure from colleagues or the public to moderate their rulings, Sanchez claims that "group polarization is almost a certainty", adding that "there's the real possibility that these judges become more extreme over time, even when they had only a mild bias to begin with".<ref name="wp-2013-7-5" />
===Appointment process===
The court's judges<ref>{{cite news |title=The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court/2013/06/07/4700b382-cfec-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_graphic.html |access-date=February 12, 2014 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=June 7, 2013 |archive-date=February 22, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222215133/http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court/2013/06/07/4700b382-cfec-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_graphic.html |url-status=live }}</ref> are appointed solely by the [[Chief Justice of the United States]] without confirmation or oversight by the U.S. Congress.<ref name="Salon20130709">{{cite news |author=Walsh, Joan |title=John Roberts' Scary Secret Powers – Running the Shadowy FISA Court, Where 10 of 11 Judges He Appointed Are Republican, Could Even Trump His SCOTUS Role |url=http://www.salon.com/2013/07/09/john_roberts_scary_secret_powers/ |access-date=July 13, 2013 |work=[[Salon (website)|Salon]] |date=July 9, 2013 |archive-date=July 13, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130713030322/http://www.salon.com/2013/07/09/john_roberts_scary_secret_powers/ |url-status=live }}</ref> This gives the chief justice the ability to appoint like-minded judges and create a court without diversity.<ref>{{cite news |last=Savage |first=Charlie |title=Roberts's Picks Reshaping Secret Surveillance Court |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/robertss-picks-reshaping-secret-surveillance-court.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |access-date=February 10, 2014 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=July 25, 2013 |archive-date=August 13, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130813142309/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/robertss-picks-reshaping-secret-surveillance-court.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Savage |first=Charlie |title=N.S.A. Program Gathers Data on a Third of Nation's Calls, Officials Say |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/us/politics/nsa-program-gathers-data-on-a-third-of-nations-calls-officials-say.html?src=recg |access-date=February 10, 2014 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=February 7, 2014 |archive-date=March 9, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309084316/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/us/politics/nsa-program-gathers-data-on-a-third-of-nations-calls-officials-say.html?src=recg |url-status=live }}</ref> "The judges are hand-picked by someone who, through his votes on the Supreme Court, we have come to learn has a particular view on civil liberties and law enforcement", Theodore Ruger, a professor at the [[University of Pennsylvania Law School]], said with respect to Chief Justice [[John Roberts]]. "The way the FISA is set up, it gives him unchecked authority to put judges on the court who feel the same way he does."<ref name="Salon20130709" />  And [[Stephen Vladeck]], a law professor at the [[University of Texas School of Law]], added, "Since FISA was enacted in 1978, we've had three chief justices, and they have all been conservative Republicans, so I think one can worry that there is insufficient diversity."<ref>{{cite news |title=The Judges Who Preside over America's Secret Court |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-security-fisa-judges-idUSL2N0EV1TG20130621 |access-date=July 13, 2013 |work=[[Reuters]] |date=June 21, 2013 |author1=Shiffman, John |author2=Cooke, Kristina |archive-date=March 10, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310064925/http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-security-fisa-judges-idUSL2N0EV1TG20130621 |url-status=live }}</ref> As of June 2024, eight of the eleven judges sitting on the FISA court were appointed to federal district courts by Republican presidents.
There are some reform proposals. Senator [[Richard Blumenthal]] from Connecticut proposed that each of the chief judges of the 12 major appeals courts select a district judge for the surveillance court; the chief justice would still pick the review panel that hears rare appeals of the court's decisions, but six other Supreme Court justices would have to sign off. Another proposal authored by Representative [[Adam Schiff]] of California would give the president the power to nominate judges for the court, subject to Senate approval, while Representative [[Steve Cohen (politician)|Steve Cohen]] proposed that Congressional leaders pick eight of the court's members.<ref>{{registration required|date=July 2013}} {{cite news |author=[[Charlie Savage (author)|Savage, Charlie]] |title=Roberts's Picks Reshaping Secret Surveillance Court |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/robertss-picks-reshaping-secret-surveillance-court.html?hp&_r=0 |access-date=July 26, 2013 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=July 25, 2013 |archive-date=July 26, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130726220900/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/robertss-picks-reshaping-secret-surveillance-court.html?hp&_r=0 |url-status=live }}</ref>
===Judicial and public oversight===
Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the [[University of Texas School of Law]], has argued that, without having to seek the approval of the court (which he has said merely reviews certifications to ensure that they{{spaced ndash}}and not the surveillance itself – comply with the various statutory requirements), the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can engage in sweeping programmatic surveillance for one year at a time.<ref name="Lawfare20130522">{{cite news |author-link=Steve Vladeck |author=Vladeck, Steve |title=Why Clapper Matters: The Future of Programmatic Surveillance |url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/2012/05/clapper-and-the-future-of-surveillance/ |access-date=July 18, 2013 |work=lawfareblog.com |date=May 22, 2013 |archive-date=May 14, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514070629/http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/clapper-and-the-future-of-surveillance/ |url-status=live }}</ref> There are procedures used by the NSA to target non-U.S. persons<ref>{{cite news |author=Staff |title=Procedures Used by NSA to Target Non-US Persons: Exhibit A – Full Document – Top-Secret Documents Show Fisa Judges Have Signed Off on Broad Orders Allowing the NSA to Make Use of Information 'Inadvertently' Collected from Domestic US Communications Without a Warrant – Revealed: The Secret Rules That Allow NSA to Use US Data Without a Warrant |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-a-procedures-nsa-document |access-date=July 13, 2013 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 20, 2013 |archive-date=January 3, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170103043118/https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-a-procedures-nsa-document |url-status=live }}</ref> and procedures used by the NSA to minimize data collection from U.S. persons.<ref>{{cite news |author=Staff |title=Procedures Used by NSA to Minimize Data Collection from US Persons: Exhibit B – Full Document – The Documents Detail the Procedures the NSA Is Required to Follow to Target 'Non-US Persons' under Its Foreign Intelligence Powers – And What the Agency Does to Minimize Data Collected on US Citizens and Residents – Revealed: The Secret Rules That Allow NSA to Use US Data Without a Warrant |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-nsa-procedures-document |access-date=July 13, 2013 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 20, 2013 |archive-date=August 24, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130824200015/http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-nsa-procedures-document |url-status=live }}</ref> These court-approved policies allow the NSA to do the following:<ref name="Guardian20130720">{{cite news |title=The Top Secret Rules That Allow NSA to Use US Data Without a Warrant – Fisa Court Submissions Show Broad Scope of Procedures Governing NSA's Surveillance of Americans' Communication – Document One: Procedures Used by NSA to Target Non-US Persons – Document Two: Procedures Used by NSA to Minimise Data Collected from US Persons |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant |access-date=July 13, 2013 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 20, 2013 |author=[[Glenn Greenwald|Greenwald, Glenn]]; Ball, James |archive-date=July 31, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130731051308/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=New documents reveal parameters of NSA's secret surveillance programs |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-documents-reveal-parameters-of-nsas-secret-surveillance-programs/2013/06/20/54248600-d9f7-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html |access-date=February 13, 2014 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=June 21, 2013 |author1=Ellen Nakashima, Barton Gellman |author2=Greg Miller |name-list-style=amp |archive-date=February 17, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140217035630/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-documents-reveal-parameters-of-nsas-secret-surveillance-programs/2013/06/20/54248600-d9f7-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
*keep data that could potentially contain details of U.S. persons for up to five years;
*retain and make use of "inadvertently acquired" domestic communications if they contain usable intelligence, information on criminal activity, threat of harm to people or property, are encrypted, or are believed to contain any information relevant to cybersecurity;
*preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within [[Attorney–client privilege|attorney–client communications]]; and
*access the content of communications gathered from "U.S. based machine[s]" or phone numbers in order to establish if targets are located in the U.S., for the purposes of ceasing further surveillance.
Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU's deputy legal director, said in light of revelations that the government secured telephone records from Verizon and Internet data from some of the largest providers that safeguards that are supposed to be protecting individual privacy are not working.<ref name="WP20130608" /> Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice in New York, wrote in the ''Wall Street Journal'' that when courts make mistakes, the losing party has the right to appeal and the erroneous decision is reversed. "That process cannot happen when a secret court considers a case with only one party before it."<ref name="WP20130608" />
According to ''The Guardian'', "The broad scope of the court orders, and the nature of the procedures set out in the documents, appear to clash with assurances from President Obama and senior intelligence officials that the NSA could not access Americans' call or email information without warrants".<ref name="Guardian20130720" /> [[Glenn Greenwald]], who published details of the [[PRISM (surveillance program)|PRISM surveillance program]], explained:
{{blockquote|that this entire process is a fig leaf, "oversight" in name only. It offers no real safeguards. That's because no court monitors what the NSA is actually doing when it claims to comply with the court-approved procedures. Once the Fisa court puts its approval stamp on the NSA's procedures, there is no external judicial check on which targets end up being selected by the NSA analysts for eavesdropping. The only time individualized warrants are required is when the NSA is specifically targeting a US citizen or the communications are purely domestic. When it is time for the NSA to obtain Fisa court approval, the agency does not tell the court whose calls and emails it intends to intercept. It instead merely provides the general guidelines which it claims are used by its analysts to determine which individuals they can target, and the Fisa court judge then issues a simple order approving those guidelines. The court endorses a one-paragraph form order stating that the NSA's process {{"'}}contains all the required elements' and that the revised NSA, FBI and CIA minimization procedures submitted with the amendment 'are consistent with the requirements of [50 U.S.C. §&nbsp;1881a(e)] and with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States{{'"}}. As but one typical example, ''The Guardian'' has obtained an August 19, 2010, Fisa court approval from Judge [[John D. Bates]] which does nothing more than recite the statutory language in approving the NSA's guidelines.
Once the NSA has this court approval, it can then target anyone chosen by their analysts, and can even order telecoms and internet companies to turn over to them the emails, chats and calls of those they target. The Fisa court plays no role whatsoever in reviewing whether the procedures it approved are actually complied with when the NSA starts eavesdropping on calls and reading people's emails. The guidelines submitted by the NSA to the Fisa court demonstrate how much discretion the agency has in choosing who will be targeted.  ... The only oversight for monitoring whether there is abuse comes from the executive branch itself: from the DOJ and Director of National Intelligence, which conduct "periodic reviews  ... to evaluate the implementation of the procedure". At a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon, deputy attorney general [[James M. Cole|James Cole]] testified that every 30 days, the Fisa court is merely given an "aggregate number" of database searches on US domestic phone records.  ... The decisions about who has their emails and telephone calls intercepted by the NSA is made by the NSA itself, not by the Fisa court, except where the NSA itself concludes the person is a US citizen and/or the communication is exclusively domestic. But even in such cases, the NSA often ends up intercepting those communications of Americans without individualized warrants, and all of this is left to the discretion of the NSA analysts with no real judicial oversight.<ref name="Greenwald20130719">{{cite news |author=[[Glenn Greenwald|Greenwald, Glenn]] |title=Fisa Court Oversight: A Look Inside a Secret and Empty Process – Obama and Other NSA Defenders Insist There Are Robust Limitations on Surveillance But the Documents Show Otherwise |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy |access-date=July 13, 2013 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 18, 2013 |archive-date=September 8, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130908084053/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy |url-status=live }}</ref>}}
Deputy Attorney General [[James M. Cole]] and NSA Deputy Director [[John C. Inglis]] cited the court's oversight in defending the constitutionality of the NSA's surveillance activities before during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in July 2013. Representative [[Jerrold Nadler]], challenged Cole's defense of the program's constitutionality, and he said the secrecy in which the court functioned negated the validity of its review. "The fact that a secret court unaccountable to public knowledge of what it's doing  ... may join you in misusing or abusing the statutes is of no comfort whatsoever", Nadler said.<ref name="McClatchy20130717">{{cite news |last=Watkins |first=Aiy |title=Skeptical Congress Turns Its Spycam on NSA Surveillance |url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/17/196962/skeptical-congress-turns-its-spycam.html#.UeecsI2pqSo |access-date=July 18, 2013 |publisher=[[McClatchy Washington Bureau]] |date=July 17, 2013 |archive-date=July 18, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130718013202/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/17/196962/skeptical-congress-turns-its-spycam.html#.UeecsI2pqSo |url-status=live }}</ref> Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, said the secrecy that comes along with national security makes it difficult to evaluate how the administration carries out the wide authority Congress has given it. "FISA court judges hear all of this and they think it's legal," Kerr said. "What we really don't know, though, are what the FISA court's opinions say."<ref name="WP20130608" />
===Secret law===
In July 2013, ''[[The New York Times]]'' published disclosures from anonymous government whistleblowers of secret law written by the court holding that vast collections of data on all Americans (even those not connected in any way to foreign enemies) amassed by the NSA do not violate the warrant requirements of [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]]. It reported that anyone suspected of being involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage or cyber-attacks, according to the court, may be considered a legitimate target for warrantless surveillance. Acting like a parallel [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]], the court greatly broadened the [[special needs doctrine|"special-needs" exception]] to do so.<ref name="NYT broaden">{{Cite web |author=[[Eric Lichtblau|Lichtblau, Eric]] |date=July 6, 2013 |title=In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of N.S.A. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=July 9, 2013 |quote=Unlike the Supreme Court, the FISA court hears from only one side in the case –  the government –  and its findings are almost never made public. |archive-date=July 9, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130709014047/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
The newspaper reported that in "more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation's surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans".<ref name="NYT broaden" />{{efn|The phrase "secret law written by the court" is a little misleading, because the distinction between "creating" a body of law rather than "writing" is important, since courts do not have the authority to write law, even if the end result is very close to the same.}} It also wrote, with respect to the court:
{{blockquote|In one of the court's most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the 'special needs' doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures  ... The special needs doctrine was originally established in 1989 by the Supreme Court in a [[Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association|ruling]] allowing the drug testing of railway workers, finding that a minimal intrusion on privacy was justified by the government's need to combat an overriding public danger. Applying that concept more broadly, the FISA judges have ruled that the N.S.A.'s collection and examination of Americans' communications data to track possible terrorists does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the officials said. That legal interpretation is significant, several outside legal experts said, because it uses a relatively narrow area of the law{{spaced ndash}} used to justify airport screenings, for instance, or drunken-driving checkpoints{{spaced ndash}} and applies it much more broadly, in secret, to the wholesale collection of communications in pursuit of terrorism suspects.<ref name="NYT broaden" />}}
The "special-needs" doctrine is an exemption to the Fourth Amendment's Warrants Clause which commands that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be and seized". The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized an exemption to the Warrants Clause "outside the foreign intelligence context, in so-called 'special-needs' cases. In those cases, the Court excused compliance with the Warrant Clause when the purpose behind the governmental action went beyond routine law enforcement and insisting upon a warrant would materially interfere with the accomplishment of that purpose. See, ''[[Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton]]'', 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995) (upholding drug testing of highschool athletes and explaining that the exception to the warrant requirement applied "when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement[s] impracticable (quoting ''[[Griffin v. Wisconsin]]'', 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987))); ''[[Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association|Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass'n]]'', 489 U.S. 602, 620 (1989) (upholding regulations instituting drug and alcohol testing of railroad workers for safety reasons); cf. ''[[Terry v. Ohio]]'', 392 U.S. 1, 23-24 (1968) (upholding pat-frisk for weapons to protect officer safety during investigatory stop)".<ref name="Seyla20080822">{{cite web |author=[[Bruce M. Selya|Selya, Bruce M.]] |title=United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Case No. 08-01 In Re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act |url=https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr082208.pdf |publisher=[[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review|U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review]] (via the [[Federation of American Scientists]]) |access-date=July 15, 2013 |date=August 22, 2008 |archive-date=August 3, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190803025150/https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr082208.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review concluded on August 22, 2008, in the case ''In re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act'', that the "special-needs" doctrine applied by analogy to justify a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement for surveillance undertaken for national security purposes and directed at a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.<ref name="Seyla20080822" /><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=1&hp |title=Court Affirms Wiretapping Without Warrants |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=January 16, 2009 |author=[[James Risen|Risen, James]]; [[Eric Lichtblau|Lichtblau, Eric]] |date=January 15, 2009 |archive-date=March 28, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130328012330/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=1&hp |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{subscription required|date=July 2013}} {{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123206893587088395?mod=googlenews_wsj |title=Court Backs U.S. Wiretapping |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |access-date=January 16, 2009 |first=Evan |last=Perez |date=January 16, 2009 |archive-date=August 31, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831213445/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123206893587088395?mod=googlenews_wsj |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=[[Del Quentin Wilber|Wilber, Del Quentin]]; [[R. Jeffrey Smith|Smith, R. Jeffrey]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011502311.html?hpid=topnews |title=Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=July 15, 2013 |date=January 16, 2009 |archive-date=August 31, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831213500/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011502311.html?hpid=topnews |url-status=live }}</ref>
[[James Robertson (judge)|James Robertson]]{{spaced ndash}}a former judge for the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia]], who, in 2004, ruled against the Bush administration in the ''[[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]]'' case, and also served on the FISC for three years between 2002 and 2005{{spaced ndash}}said he was "frankly stunned" by the newspaper's report that court rulings had created a new body of law broadening the ability of the NSA to use its surveillance programs to target not only terrorists but suspects in cases involving espionage, cyberattacks and weapons of mass destruction.<ref>{{cite web |last=Braun |first=Stephan |title=Former Judge Admits Flaws in Secret Court |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/oversight-board-hears-testimony-nsa-spying-19613092#.Ud3IWsjLfaW |publisher=[[Associated Press]] (via [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]]) |access-date=July 10, 2013 |date=July 9, 2013 |archive-date=July 11, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130711211028/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/oversight-board-hears-testimony-nsa-spying-19613092#.Ud3IWsjLfaW |url-status=live }}</ref> Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor of constitutional law at the [[University of Chicago]], said he was troubled by the idea that the court is creating a significant body of law without hearing from anyone outside the government, forgoing the adversarial system that is a staple of the American justice system. He said, "That whole notion is missing in this process".<ref name="NYT broaden" />
The court concluded that mass collection of telephone [[metadata]] (including the time of phone calls and numbers dialed) does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the government establishes a valid reason under national security regulations before taking the next step of actually examining the contents of an American's communications. This concept is rooted partly in the special needs doctrine. "The basic idea is that it's O.K. to create this huge pond of data", an unnamed U.S. official said, "but you have to establish a reason to stick your pole in the water and start fishing".<ref name="NYT broaden" /> Under the new procedures passed by the U.S. Congress in the [[FISA Amendments Act of 2008]], even the collection of metadata must be considered "relevant" to a terrorism investigation or other intelligence activities. The court has indicated that while individual pieces of data may not appear "relevant" to a terrorism investigation, the total picture that the bits of data create may in fact be relevant, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of the decisions.<ref name="NYT broaden" />
A secret ruling made by the court that redefined the single word "relevant" enabled the NSA to gather phone data on millions of Americans. In classified orders starting in the mid-2000s, the court accepted that "relevant" could be broadened to permit an entire database of records on millions of people, in contrast to a more conservative interpretation widely applied in criminal cases, in which only some of those records would likely be allowed.<ref name="WSJ20130708">{{cite news |title=Secret Court's Redefinition of 'Relevant' Empowered Vast NSA Data-Gathering |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |date=July 8, 2013 |author1=Valentino-Devries, Jennifer |author2=Gorman, Siobhan}}</ref> Under the Patriot Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation can require businesses to hand over "tangible things", including "records", as long as the FBI shows it is reasonable to believe the things are "relevant to an authorized investigation" into international terrorism or foreign intelligence activities. The history of the word "relevant" is key to understanding that passage. The Supreme Court in 1991 said things are "relevant" if there is a "reasonable possibility" that they will produce information related to the subject of the investigation. In criminal cases, courts previously have found that very large sets of information did not meet the relevance standard because significant portions{{spaced ndash}}innocent people's information{{spaced ndash}}would not be pertinent. But the court has developed separate precedents, centered on the idea that investigations to prevent national-security threats are different from ordinary criminal cases. The court's rulings on such matters are classified and almost impossible to challenge because of the secret nature of the proceedings. According to the court, the special nature of national-security and terrorism-prevention cases means "relevant" can have a broader meaning for those investigations, say people familiar with the rulings.<ref name="WSJ20130708" />
People familiar with the system that uses phone records in investigations have said that the court's novel legal theories allow the system to include bulk phone records, as long as there are privacy safeguards to limit searches. NSA analysts may query the database only "when there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization", according to [[Director of National Intelligence]] [[James Clapper]].<ref name="WSJ20130708" /> The NSA database includes data about people's phone calls{{spaced ndash}} numbers dialed, how long a call lasted{{spaced ndash}}but not the actual conversations. According to Supreme Court rulings, a phone call's content is covered by the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which restricts unreasonable searches, but the other types of data are not.<ref name="WSJ20130708" />
"Relevant" has long been a broad standard, but the way the court is interpreting it, to mean, in effect, "everything", is new, said Mark Eckenwiler, a lawyer who until December 2012 was the Justice Department's primary authority on federal criminal surveillance law. "I think it's a stretch" of previous federal legal interpretations, said Eckenwiler. If a federal attorney "served a grand-jury subpoena for such a broad class of records in a criminal investigation, he or she would be laughed out of court".<ref name="WSJ20130708" /> Given the traditional legal definition of relevant, Timothy Edgar, a former top privacy lawyer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Council in the Bush and Obama administrations, noted it is "a fair point" to say that someone reading the law might believe it refers to "individualized requests" or "requests in small batches, rather than in bulk database form". From that standpoint, Edgar said, the reinterpretation of relevant amounts to "secret law".<ref name="WSJ20130708" />
==Controversies==
===2013 NSA controversy===
{{main|2013 mass surveillance scandal}}
In June 2013, a copy of a [[Classified information|top-secret]] warrant, issued by the court on April 25, 2013, was leaked to London's ''[[The Guardian]]'' newspaper by NSA contractor [[Edward Snowden]].<ref name="guardian-2013-6-5">{{cite news |author=[[Glenn Greenwald|Greenwald, Glenn]] |title=NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers Daily – Exclusive: Top Secret Court Order Requiring Verizon to Hand Over All Call Data Shows Scale of Domestic Surveillance under Obama |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order |access-date=July 12, 2013 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 5, 2013 |archive-date=August 16, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130816045641/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=NSA Collected US Email Records in Bulk for More Than Two Years under Obama – Secret Program Launched by Bush Continued 'Until 2011' – Fisa Court Renewed Collection Order Every 90 Days – Current NSA Programs Still Mine US Internet Metadata |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-data-mining-authorised-obama |access-date=July 10, 2013 |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 27, 2013 |author=[[Glenn Greenwald|Greenwald, Glenn]]; [[Spencer Ackerman|Ackerman, Spencer]] |archive-date=July 31, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130731013806/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-data-mining-authorised-obama |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=How the NSA Is Still Harvesting Your Online Data – Files Show Vast Scale of Current NSA Metadata Programs, with One Stream Alone Celebrating 'One Trillion Records Processed' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-online-metadata-collection |access-date=July 10, 2013 |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 27, 2013 |author=[[Glenn Greenwald|Greenwald, Glenn]]; [[Spencer Ackerman|Ackerman, Spencer]] |archive-date=August 4, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130804182912/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-online-metadata-collection |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{registration required|date=July 2013}} {{cite news |title=U.S. Confirms That It Gathers Online Data Overseas |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |access-date=July 10, 2013 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=June 6, 2013 |author=[[Charlie Savage (author)|Savage, Charlie]]; Wyatt, Edward; [[Peter Baker (author)|Baker, Peter]] |archive-date=June 15, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130615211545/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Nakashima |first=Ellen |title=Verizon Providing All Call Records to U.S. under Court Order |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/verizon-providing-all-call-records-to-us-under-court-order/2013/06/05/98656606-ce47-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html |access-date=July 10, 2013 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=June 6, 2013 |archive-date=June 6, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130606172241/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/verizon-providing-all-call-records-to-us-under-court-order/2013/06/05/98656606-ce47-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> That warrant orders [[Verizon Business Network Services]] to provide a daily feed to the NSA containing "telephony [[metadata]]" – comprehensive [[call detail record]]s, including [[Telephone tapping#Location data|location data]]<ref>{{citation |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order |title=Secondary Order |date=July 19, 2013 |access-date=December 13, 2016 |archive-date=May 14, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190514023546/https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order |url-status=live }}</ref> – about all calls in its system, including those that occur "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls".<ref name="VZWarrant">{{cite web |first=Roger |last=Vinson |author-link=Roger Vinson |title=In Re Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things from Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. on Behalf of MCI Communication Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business Services |url=http://epic.org/privacy/nsa/Section-215-Order-to-Verizon.pdf |publisher=U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (via the [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]]) |access-date=June 20, 2013 |date=April 25, 2013 |archive-date=June 21, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130621094328/https://epic.org/privacy/nsa/Section-215-Order-to-Verizon.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> The Obama administration published on July 31, 2013<ref>{{cite news |last=Nakashima |first=Ellen |title=Newly Ceclassified Documents on Phone Records Program Released |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/governments-secret-order-to-verizon-to-be-unveiled-at-senate-hearing/2013/07/31/233fdd3a-f9cf-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_story.html |access-date=August 4, 2013 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=July 31, 2013 |archive-date=July 2, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140702052205/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/governments-secret-order-to-verizon-to-be-unveiled-at-senate-hearing/2013/07/31/233fdd3a-f9cf-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Senate Panel Presses N.S.A. on Phone Logs |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/us/nsa-surveillance.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |access-date=August 4, 2013 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=July 31, 2013 |author=[[Charlie Savage (author)|Savage, Charlie]]; [[David E. Sanger|Sanger, David E.]] |archive-date=August 3, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130803154828/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/us/nsa-surveillance.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |url-status=live }}</ref> a FISA Court ruling supporting an earlier order requiring a Verizon subsidiary to turn over all of its customers' phone logs for a three-month period, with rules that must be followed when accessing the data.<ref>{{cite web |last=Vinson |first=Roger |author-link=Roger Vinson |title=FISA Court Primary Order Collection 215 |url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/743216-primaryorder-collection-215.html |publisher=FISA Court (via [[DocumentCloud]]) |access-date=August 4, 2013 |date=April 25, 2013 |archive-date=February 22, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222163114/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/743216-primaryorder-collection-215.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
The document leaked to ''The Guardian'' acted as a "[[smoking gun]]" and sparked a public outcry of criticism and complaints<ref name="guardian-2013-6-5" /><ref>{{registration required|date=July 2013}} {{Cite news |author=[[Charlie Savage (author)|Savage, Charlie]]; Wyatt, Edward |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us-secretly-collecting-logs-of-business-calls.html?hp&_r=0 |title=U.S. Is Secretly Collecting Records of Verizon Calls |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=June 5, 2013 |access-date=June 6, 2013 |archive-date=June 6, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130606185118/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us-secretly-collecting-logs-of-business-calls.html?hp&_r=0 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Administration, Lawmakers Defend NSA Program to Collect Phone Records |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/administration-lawmakers-defend-nsa-program-to-collect-phone-records/2013/06/06/2a56d966-ceb9-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html |access-date=July 10, 2013 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=June 6, 2013 |author=Nakashima, Ellen; Markon, Jerry; O'Keefe, Ed |archive-date=June 7, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130607162154/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/administration-lawmakers-defend-nsa-program-to-collect-phone-records/2013/06/06/2a56d966-ceb9-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> that the court exceeded its authority and violated the [[Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States|Fourth Amendment]] by issuing [[general warrant]]s.<ref name="gore">{{cite news |author=Goldenberg, Suzanne |title=Al Gore: NSA's Secret Surveillance Program 'Not Really the American Way' – Former Vice-President – Not Persuaded by Argument That Program Was Legal – Urges Congress and Obama to Amend the Laws |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/14/al-gore-nsa-surveillance-unamerican |access-date=July 12, 2013 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 14, 2013 |archive-date=September 4, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130904215511/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/14/al-gore-nsa-surveillance-unamerican |url-status=live }}</ref> ''The Washington Post'' then reported that it knew of other orders, and that the court had been issuing such orders, to all telecommunication companies, every three months since May 24, 2006.<ref name=WP-ALLmetadata>{{cite news |author=[[Barton Gellman|Gellman, Barton]] |date=June 15, 2013 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-surveillance-architecture-includes-collection-of-revealing-internet-phone-metadata/2013/06/15/e9bf004a-d511-11e2-b05f-3ea3f0e7bb5a_story.html |title=U.S. Surveillance Architecture Includes Collection of Revealing Internet, Phone Metadata |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=July 12, 2013 |archive-date=June 18, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130618055922/http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-surveillance-architecture-includes-collection-of-revealing-internet-phone-metadata/2013/06/15/e9bf004a-d511-11e2-b05f-3ea3f0e7bb5a_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
Since the telephone metadata program<ref>{{cite news |last=Priest |first=Dana |title=Piercing the confusion around NSA's phone surveillance program |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/piercing-the-confusion-around-nsas-phone-surveillance-program/2013/08/08/bdece566-fbc4-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html |access-date=August 14, 2013 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=August 9, 2013 |archive-date=February 1, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201182937/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/piercing-the-confusion-around-nsas-phone-surveillance-program/2013/08/08/bdece566-fbc4-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> was revealed, the intelligence community, some members of Congress, and the Obama administration have defended its legality and use. Most of these defenses involve the 1979 Supreme Court decision ''[[Smith v. Maryland]]'' which established that people do not have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy for electronic metadata held by third parties like a cellphone provider.<ref>{{cite news |last=Peterson |first=Andrea |title=The NSA says it 'obviously' can track locations without a warrant. That's not so obvious. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/04/the-nsa-says-it-obviously-can-track-locations-without-a-warrant-thats-not-so-obvious/ |access-date=December 6, 2013 |newspaper=The Washington Post's The Switch |date=December 4, 2013 |archive-date=December 5, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131205065821/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/04/the-nsa-says-it-obviously-can-track-locations-without-a-warrant-thats-not-so-obvious/ |url-status=live }}</ref> That data is not considered "content", theoretically giving law enforcement more flexibility in collecting it.<ref name="Verge20130717">{{cite web |author=Sottek, T.C. |title=Lawmakers Blast Phone Surveillance Dragnet: 'We Have a Very Serious Violation of the Law' – Can Congress Rein in Its Own Demons? |url=https://www.theverge.com/2013/7/17/4531726/senators-surveillance-dragnet-hearing-judiciary |access-date=July 18, 2013 |website=[[The Verge]] |date=July 17, 2013 |archive-date=July 20, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130720022027/http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/17/4531726/senators-surveillance-dragnet-hearing-judiciary |url-status=live }}</ref>
On July 19, 2013, the court renewed the permission for the NSA to collect Verizon customer records en masse.<ref name="19 July 2013">{{cite web |last=Whittaker |first=Zack |date=July 19, 2013 |title=Verizon's Secret Data Order Timed to Expire, but NSA Spying to Carry On |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/verizons-secret-data-order-timed-to-expire-but-nsa-spying-to-carry-on/ |publisher=Zero Day (blog of [[ZDNet]]) |access-date=July 29, 2013 |archive-date=July 25, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130725072617/http://www.zdnet.com/verizons-secret-data-order-timed-to-expire-but-nsa-spying-likely-to-carry-on-7000018321/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=King |first=Rachel |title=Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Asserts Authority over Phone Records |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-asserts-authority-over-phone-records/ |publisher=Between the Lines (blog of [[ZDNet]]) |access-date=July 29, 2013 |date=July 19, 2013 |archive-date=July 26, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130726013432/http://www.zdnet.com/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-asserts-authority-over-phone-records-7000018323/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The U.S. government was relying on a part of the [[third-party doctrine]]. This notion said that when a person has voluntarily disclosed information to a third party – in this case, the telephony metadata – the customer no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy over the numbers dialed nor their duration. Therefore, this doctrine argued, such metadata can be accessed by law enforcement with essentially no problem.<ref>{{cite web |last=Farivar |first=Cyrus |title=Snowden Be Damned: Government Renews US Call Record Order – Again, Feds Argue There's No 'Legitimate Expectation of Privacy' over Metadata |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/snowden-be-damned-government-renews-us-call-record-order/ |website=[[Ars Technica]] |access-date=July 29, 2013 |date=July 19, 2013 |archive-date=July 23, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130723125522/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/snowden-be-damned-government-renews-us-call-record-order/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The content of communications are, however, subject to the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]]. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held in October 2011, citing multiple Supreme Court precedents, that the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to the contents of all communications, whatever the means, because "a person's private communications are akin to personal papers".<ref name="FiscPrivacyRuling2011">{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/fisc_opinion_-_unconstitutional_surveillance_0.pdf |pages=73–74 |date=October 3, 2011 |author=John D Bates |title=[redacted] |access-date=September 16, 2013 |archive-date=July 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190711060421/https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/fisc_opinion_-_unconstitutional_surveillance_0.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
Former FISC judge [[Colleen Kollar-Kotelly]], who provided the legal foundation for the NSA amassing a database of all Americans' phone records, told associates in the summer of 2013 that she wanted her legal argument out.<ref>{{cite news |title=Effort underway to declassify document that is legal foundation for NSA phone program |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/effort-underway-to-declassify-document-that-is-legal-foundation-for-nsa-phone-program/2013/10/12/3049a9fa-31cb-11e3-89ae-16e186e117d8_story.html |access-date=October 22, 2013 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=October 13, 2013 |author1=Ellen Nakashima |author2=Carol D. Leonnig |name-list-style=amp |archive-date=October 13, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131013084502/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/effort-underway-to-declassify-document-that-is-legal-foundation-for-nsa-phone-program/2013/10/12/3049a9fa-31cb-11e3-89ae-16e186e117d8_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Rulings for the plaintiff in cases brought by the [[American Civil Liberties Union|ACLU]] on September 10 and 12, 2013, prompted [[James Clapper]] to concede that the government had overreached in its covert surveillance under part 215 of FISA and that the Act would likely be amended to reflect Congressional concern.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/edward-snowden-nsa-disclosures-judge ''Fisa judge: Snowden's NSA disclosures triggered important spying debate''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170103113716/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/edward-snowden-nsa-disclosures-judge |date=January 3, 2017 }}, Ackerman, Spencer. [[The Guardian]]. September 13, 2013. Accessed September 14, 2013.</ref>
The [[American Civil Liberties Union]], a customer of Verizon, asked on November 22, 2013, a federal district court in Lower Manhattan, New York to end the NSA phone call data collection program. The ACLU argued that the program violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of privacy and information as well as exceeding the scope of its authorizing legislation, Section 215 of the [[Patriot Act]]. The U.S. government countered that the program is constitutional and that Congress was fully informed when it authorized and reauthorized Section 215. Moreover, a government lawyer said, the ACLU has no standing to bring the case because it cannot prove that its members have been harmed by the NSA's use of the data.<ref>{{cite news |last=Nakashima |first=Ellen |title=ACLU asks court to end NSA surveillance program that collects phone call data |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aclu-asks-court-to-end-nsa-surveillance-program-that-collects-phone-call-data/2013/11/22/deb972b4-53b7-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop |access-date=November 23, 2013 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=November 23, 2013 |archive-date=March 11, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160311110832/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aclu-asks-court-to-end-nsa-surveillance-program-that-collects-phone-call-data/2013/11/22/deb972b4-53b7-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop |url-status=live }}</ref>
===2016 presidential election controversy===
{{main|Trump Tower wiretapping allegations}}
In November 2016, [[Louise Mensch]] reported on the news website ''[[Heat Street]]'' that, after an initial June 2016 FBI request was denied, the FISA court had granted a more narrowly focused October request from the FBI "to examine the activities of 'U.S. persons' in Donald Trump's campaign with ties to Russia".<ref name=HeatStreet>{{cite web|url=https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/|title=EXCLUSIVE: FBI 'Granted FISA Warrant' Covering Trump Camp's Ties To Russia|access-date=March 5, 2017|archive-date=November 8, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161108195626/https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/|url-status=live}}</ref>  On 12 January 2017, BBC journalist [[Paul Wood (journalist)|Paul Wood]] reported that, in response to an April 2016 tip from a foreign intelligence agency to the CIA about "money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign", a joint taskforce had been established including representatives of the [[FBI]], the [[United States Department of the Treasury|Department of the Treasury]], the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]], the [[CIA]], the [[Director of National Intelligence|Office of the Director of National Intelligence]] and the [[National Security Agency]]. In June 2016, lawyers from the Department of Justice applied to the FISA court for "permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks". According to Wood, this application was rejected, as was a more narrowly focused request in July, and the order was finally granted by a different FISA judge on 15 October, three weeks before the presidential election.<ref name=BBC>{{cite web|title=Trump 'compromising' claims: How and why did we get here?|author=Paul Wood|publisher=BBC|date=12 January 2017|access-date=7 March 2017|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427|archive-date=September 21, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180921150914/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427|url-status=live}}</ref> On January 19, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported that one of its sources had claimed "intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House".<ref name=NYT>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html |title=Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates |newspaper=The New York Times |date=January 20, 2017 |access-date=March 7, 2017 |archive-date=January 20, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170120225140/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html |url-status=live |last1=Schmidt |first1=Michael S. |last2=Rosenberg |first2=Matthew |last3=Goldman |first3=Adam |last4=Apuzzo |first4=Matt }}</ref>
On 13 March, the [[Senate Intelligence Committee]] demanded that the Trump administration provide evidence to support the President Trump's claim that former President [[Obama]] had wiretapped [[Trump Tower]].<ref name=News>{{cite news|work=News.com.au|url=http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/intelligence-committee-demands-evidence-from-trump-administration-over-wiretap-claim/news-story/2f70c055a840cdb130c834b7325cdd98|title=Intelligence committee demands evidence from Trump administration over 'wire-tap' claim|date=13 March 2017|access-date=17 March 2017|archive-date=March 16, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170316233809/http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/intelligence-committee-demands-evidence-from-trump-administration-over-wiretap-claim/news-story/2f70c055a840cdb130c834b7325cdd98|url-status=live}}</ref> On 16 March, the Committee reported that they had seen no evidence to support Trump's accusation that the Obama administration tapped his phones during the 2016 presidential campaign.<ref name=SBS>{{cite web|title=The Senate Intelligence Committee sees no evidence the Obama administration tapped Donald Trump's phones during the presidential campaign|url=http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/17/no-evidence-trump-wiretap-senate-panel|author=Source: AAP|date=March 16, 2017|access-date=March 16, 2017|archive-date=March 17, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170317051603/http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/17/no-evidence-trump-wiretap-senate-panel|url-status=live}}</ref>
On [[Fox News]] on 14 March, commentator [[Andrew Napolitano]] said, "Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command.  ... He used [[GCHQ]]. What is that? It's the initials for the British intelligence spying agency. Simply by saying to them, 'The president needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump's conversations' he's able to get it and there's no American fingerprints on this." Two days later, on 16 March, White House press spokesperson, [[Sean Spicer]], read this claim to the press. A GCHQ spokesman responded: "Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wiretapping' against the then president elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored."<ref name=Telegraph>{{cite news|title=GCHQ issues rare public statement to dismiss Trump Tower wiretapping claims as 'utterly ridiculous'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/16/gchq-issues-unprecedented-public-statement-dismiss-trump-tower/|author=Barney Henderson|newspaper=The Telegraph|date=March 17, 2017|access-date=March 17, 2017|archive-date=March 17, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170317042107/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/16/gchq-issues-unprecedented-public-statement-dismiss-trump-tower/|url-status=live}}</ref> On 17 March, the U.S. issued a formal apology to the [[United Kingdom]] for the accusation.<ref name=Tele>{{cite news|title=US makes formal apology to Britain after White House accuses GCHQ of wiretapping Trump Tower|date=March 17, 2017|access-date=March 17, 2017|newspaper=The Telegraph|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/us-makes-formal-apology-britain-white-house-accuses-gchq-wiretapping/|author=Steven Swinford|archive-date=March 22, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170322064105/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/us-makes-formal-apology-britain-white-house-accuses-gchq-wiretapping/|url-status=live}}</ref>
On April 11, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' reported that the FBI had been granted a FISA warrant in the summer of 2016 to monitor then-Trump foreign policy adviser [[Carter Page]]. According to the report, "The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page's communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials." The report also states that the warrant has been renewed multiple times since its first issue.<ref name=WaPo>{{cite news|title=FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page|date=April 11, 2017|access-date=April 11, 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_page710pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory|author=Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett and Adam Entous|archive-date=April 12, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170412143920/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_page710pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory|url-status=live}}</ref> These warrants were criticized in the controversial [[Nunes memo]] for allegedly being issued on the basis of evidence gathered by politically motivated sources.<ref name="NPR.org 2018">{{cite web | title=FBI Warns Of 'Grave Concerns' About 'Accuracy' Of GOP Snooping Memo | website=NPR.org | date=2018-01-31 | url=https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/582148612/fbi-warns-of-grave-concerns-about-accuracy-of-gop-snooping-memo | access-date=2018-02-12 | archive-date=December 14, 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201214045015/https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/582148612/fbi-warns-of-grave-concerns-about-accuracy-of-gop-snooping-memo | url-status=live }}</ref>
==Composition==
When the court was founded, it was composed of seven [[United States district court|federal district]] judges appointed by the [[Chief Justice of the United States]], each serving a seven-year term, with one judge being appointed each year. In 2001, the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] expanded the court from seven to eleven judges<!-- Public Law 107-56 §&nbsp;208-->, and required that at least three of the Court's judges live within {{convert|20|mi|km|spell=in}} of the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]]. No judge may be appointed to this court more than once, and no judge may be appointed to both the Court of Review and the FISA court.
Chief Justice John Roberts has appointed all of the current judges.<ref name="NYT broaden" />
===Membership===
''({{as of|2024|05|19|lc=yes}})''<ref name="fas">{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/court2016.html |title=Federation of American Scientists – The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court: 2016 Membership |access-date=April 6, 2016 |archive-date=April 22, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160422003715/https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/court2016.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="June2021">{{cite web |title=FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW Current and Past Members June 2021 |url=https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20FISCR%20Judges%20June%202021.pdf |accessdate=August 31, 2021 |archive-date=June 23, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210623095644/https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20FISCR%20Judges%20June%202021.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="April2023">{{cite web |title=Current Membership - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court {{!}} Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court {{!}} United States |url=https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/current-membership-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court |access-date=2023-04-27 |website=www.fisc.uscourts.gov}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/925996/new-jersey-federal-judge-named-to-surveillance-court |title=New Jersey Federal Judge Named To Surveillance Court |last=Posses |first=Shayna |date=May 19, 2017 |work=[[Law360]] |access-date=December 15, 2017 |url-access=subscription |archive-date=July 21, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180721105655/https://www.law360.com/articles/925996/new-jersey-federal-judge-named-to-surveillance-court |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://bangordailynews.com/2019/05/15/news/state/federal-judge-in-maine-appointed-to-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court |title=Federal judge in Maine appointed to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court |last=Harrison |first=Judy |date=2019-05-15 |website=Bangor Daily News |language=en-US |access-date=2019-05-16 |archive-date=May 19, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190519135254/https://bangordailynews.com/2019/05/15/news/state/federal-judge-in-maine-appointed-to-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/court.html |title=The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court: Current Membership |access-date=August 11, 2018 |archive-date=June 1, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200601034028/https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/court.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Current Membership - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court|url=https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/current-membership-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court|website=Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court|access-date=May 30, 2024}}</ref>
{|class="wikitable sortable"
!Name
!Court
!Start
!End
!Presiding Start
!Presiding End
!FISC Appointer<br>{{small|(Chief Justice)}}
!Original Appointer<br>{{small|(President)}}
|-
|{{sortname|Anthony|Trenga}}
|data-sort-value="Virginia, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|E.D. Va.]]
|{{dts|2020|5|28}}
|''{{dts|2026|5|18}}''
|{{dts|2023|5|19}}
|present
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{nowrap|{{sortname|Timothy D.|DeGiusti}}}}
|data-sort-value="Oklahoma, Western" |{{nowrap|[[United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma|W.D. Okla.]]}}
|{{dts|2023|5|19}}
|''{{dts|2030|5|18}}''
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Joan N.|Ericksen}}
|data-sort-value="Minnesota" |[[United States District Court for the District of Minnesota|D. Minn.]]
|{{dts|2023|4|3}}
|''{{dts|2029|5|18}}''
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Louis|Guirola Jr.}}
|data-sort-value="Mississippi, Southern" |[[United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi|S.D. Miss.]]
|{{dts|2019|7|2}}
|''{{dts|2026|5|18}}''
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
| {{sortname|Karin|Immergut}}
|data-sort-value="Oregon" |[[United States District Court for the District of Oregon|D. Ore.]]
| {{dts|2024|05|19}}
| ''{{dts|2031|5|18}}''
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Donald|Trump}}
|-
|{{sortname|Kenneth M.|Karas}}
|data-sort-value="New York, Southern" |[[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|S.D. N.Y.]]
|{{dts|2022|5|23}}
|''{{dts|2029|5|18}}''
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Sara Elizabeth|Lioi}}
|data-sort-value="Ohio, Northern" |[[United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio|N.D. Ohio]]
|{{dts|2023|5|19}}
|''{{dts|2030|5|18}}''
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Amit|Mehta}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|2021|6|1}}
|''{{dts|2028|5|18}}''
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Barack|Obama}}
|-
|{{sortname|Carl J.|Nichols}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|2024|3|11}}
|''{{dts|2030|5|18}}''
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Donald|Trump}}
|-
|{{sortname|George Z.|Singal}}
|data-sort-value="Maine" |[[United States District Court for the District of Maine|D. Me.]]
|{{dts|2019|5|19}}
|''{{dts|2026|5|18}}''
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Bill|Clinton}}
|-
|{{sortname|John|Tharp}}
|data-sort-value="Illinois, Northern" |[[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois|N.D. Ill.]]
|{{dts|2018|5|19}}
|''{{dts|2025|5|18}}''
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Barack|Obama}}
|}
===Former members===
''Note that the start dates of service for some judges conflict among sources.''<ref name="NYT May13">*{{cite web |url=http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/727664-fisc-fiscr-members-1978-2013.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130731140111/http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/727664-fisc-fiscr-members-1978-2013.html |title=Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review: Current and Past Members |author=[[Charlie Savage (author)|Savage, Charlie]] |date=May 2013 |work=[[The New York Times]] (via [[DocumentCloud]]) |access-date=July 26, 2013 |archive-date=July 31, 2013 |url-status=live}}
*{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/robertss-picks-reshaping-secret-surveillance-court.html?hp |title=Roberts's Picks Reshaping Secret Surveillance Court |author=[[Charlie Savage (author)|Savage, Charlie]] |date=July 25, 2013 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=July 26, 2013 |archive-date=July 31, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130731203310/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/robertss-picks-reshaping-secret-surveillance-court.html?hp |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2014/02/fisa-crs/ |title=FISA Court Appointments, Potential Reforms, and More from CRS |last=Aftergood |first=Steven |date=February 7, 2014 |work=[[Federation of American Scientists|Secrecy News]] |access-date=February 7, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221211210/http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2014/02/fisa-crs/ |archive-date=February 21, 2014 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name=fisa2014>{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/court2014.html |title=The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – 2014 Membership |date=n.d. |publisher=[[Federation of American Scientists]] |access-date=May 21, 2014 |archive-date=November 22, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181122210139/https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/court2014.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=2014newpresiding>{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/thomas-hogan-judge_n_5031268.html |title=Thomas Hogan Named Presiding Judge of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court |last=Ingram |first=David |date=March 25, 2014 |work=[[The Huffington Post]] |access-date=May 21, 2014 |archive-date=May 21, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140521201450/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/thomas-hogan-judge_n_5031268.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/court2015.html |title=Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 2015 Membership |date=n.d. |publisher=[[Federation of American Scientists]] |access-date=March 9, 2016 |archive-date=April 16, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190416060414/https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/court2015.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=fisa2013>{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/court2013.html |title=The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – 2013 Membership |author=Staff |date=n.d. |publisher=[[Federation of American Scientists]] |access-date=July 13, 2013 |archive-date=March 22, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160322035802/http://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/court2013.html |url-status=live}}</ref>
{|class="wikitable collapsible sortable
!Name
!Court
!Start
!End
!Presiding Start
!Presiding End
!FISC Appointer<br>{{small|(Chief Justice)}}
!Original Appointer<br>{{small|(President)}}
|-
|{{nowrap|{{sortname|Sidney|Aronovitz}}}}
|data-sort-value="Florida, Southern" |[[United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida|S.D. Fla.]]
|{{dts|1989|6|8}}
|{{dts|1992|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{nowrap|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}}}
|{{sortname|Gerald|Ford}}
|-
|{{sortname|Harold|Baker|dab=judge}}
|data-sort-value="Illinois, Central" |[[United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois|C.D. Ill.]]
|{{dts|1998|5|19}}
|{{dts|2005|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Jimmy|Carter}}
|-
|{{sortname|John D.|Bates}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|2006|2|22}}
|{{dts|2013|2|21}}
|{{dts|2009|5|19}}
|{{dts|2013|2|21}}
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Dee|Benson}}
|data-sort-value="Utah" |[[United States District Court for the District of Utah|D. Utah]]
|{{dts|2004|4|8}}
|{{dts|2011|4|7}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|George H. W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|James|Boasberg}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|2014|5|19}}
|{{dts|2021|5|18}}
|{{dts|2020|1|20}}
|{{dts|2021|5|18}}
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Dudley Baldwin|Bonsal}}
|data-sort-value="New York, Southern" |[[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|S.D. N.Y.]]
|{{dts|1981|12|2}}
|{{dts|1984|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|John F.|Kennedy}}
|-
|{{sortname|Robert C.|Broomfield}}
|data-sort-value="Arizona" |[[United States District Court for the District of Arizona|D. Ariz.]]
|{{dts|2002|10|1}}
|{{dts|2009|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|Stanley|Brotman}}
|data-sort-value="New Jersey" |[[United States District Court for the District of New Jersey|D. N.J.]]
|{{dts|1997|7|17}}
|{{dts|2004|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Gerald|Ford}}
|-
|{{sortname|Albert Vickers|Bryan Jr.}}
|data-sort-value="Virginia, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|E.D. Va.]]
|{{dts|1979|5|19}}
|{{dts|1986|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|Richard|Nixon}}
|-
|{{sortname|James|Cacheris}}
|data-sort-value="Virginia, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|E.D. Va.]]
|{{dts|1993|9|10}}
|{{dts|2000|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|James G.|Carr}}
|data-sort-value="Ohio, Northern" |[[United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio|N.D. Ohio]]
|{{dts|2002|5|19}}
|{{dts|2008|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Bill|Clinton}}
|-
|{{sortname|Earl H.|Carroll}}
|data-sort-value="Arizona" |[[United States District Court for the District of Arizona|D. Ariz.]]
|{{dts|1993|2|2}}
|{{dts|1999|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Jimmy|Carter}}
|-
|{{sortname|Jennifer B.|Coffman}}
|data-sort-value="Kentucky, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky|E.D. Ky.]]
|{{dts|2011|5|19}}
|{{dts|2013|1|8}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Bill|Clinton}}
|-
|{{sortname|Rosemary M.|Collyer}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|2013|3|8}}
|{{dts|2020|3|7}}
|{{dts|2016|5|19}}
|{{dts|2019|12|31}}
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Rudolph|Contreras}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|2016|5|19}}
|{{dts|2023|5|18}}
|{{dts|2021|5|19}}
|{{dts|2023|5|18}}
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Barack|Obama}}
|-
|{{sortname|Anne C.|Conway}}
|data-sort-value="Florida, Middle" |[[United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida|M.D. Fla.]]
|{{dts|2016|5|19}}
|{{dts|2023|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George H. W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|John Edwards|Conway}}
|data-sort-value="New Mexico" |[[United States District Court for the District of New Mexico|D. N.M.]]
|{{dts|2002|5|19}}
|{{dts|2003|10|30}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|Conrad K.|Cyr}}
|data-sort-value="Maine" |[[United States District Court for the District of Maine|D. Me.]]
|{{dts|1987|5|19}}
|{{dts|1989|11|20}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|Frederick Alvin|Daugherty}}
|data-sort-value="Oklahoma, Northern" |[[United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma|N.D. Okla.]]
|{{dts|1981|5|19}}
|{{dts|1988|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|John F.|Kennedy}}
|-
|{{sortname|Michael J.|Davis}}
|data-sort-value="Minnesota" |[[United States District Court for the District of Minnesota|D. Minn.]]
|{{dts|1999|5|19}}
|{{dts|2006|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Bill|Clinton}}
|-
|{{sortname|Raymond|Dearie}}
|data-sort-value="New York, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York|E.D. N.Y.]]
|{{dts|2012|7|2}}
|{{dts|2019|7|1}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|Edward|Devitt}}
|data-sort-value="Minnesota" |[[United States District Court for the District of Minnesota|D. Minn]]
|{{dts|1985|1|11}}
|{{dts|1992|03|02}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|Dwight|Eisenhower}}
|-
|{{sortname|Claire|Eagan}}
|data-sort-value="Oklahoma, Northern" |[[United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma|N.D. Okla.]]
|{{dts|2013|2|13}}
|{{dts|2019|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Martin Leach-Cross|Feldman}}
|data-sort-value="Louisiana, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana|E.D. La.]]
|{{dts|2010|5|19}}
|{{dts|2017|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|Frank Harlan|Freedman}}
|data-sort-value="Massachusetts" |[[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts|D. Mass.]]
|{{dts|1990|5|30}}
|{{dts|1994|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Richard|Nixon}}
|-
|{{sortname|Nathaniel M.|Gorton}}
|data-sort-value="Massachusetts" |[[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts|D. Mass.]]
|{{dts|2001|5|19}}
|{{dts|2008|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|George H. W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Joyce Hens|Green}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|1988|5|19}}
|{{dts|1995|5|18}}
|{{dts|1990|5|19}}
|{{dts|1995|5|18}}
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Jimmy|Carter}}
|-
|{{sortname|George Luzerne|Hart Jr.}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|1979|5|19}}
|{{dts|1982|5|18}}
|{{dts|1979|5|19}}
|{{dts|1982|5|18}}
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|Dwight|Eisenhower}}
|-
|{{sortname|Claude M.|Hilton}}
|data-sort-value="Virginia, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|E.D. Va.]]
|{{dts|2000|5|19}}
|{{dts|2007|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|Thomas F.|Hogan}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|2009|5|19}}
|{{dts|2016|5|18}}
|{{dts|2014|5|19}}
|{{dts|2016|5|18}}
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|Malcolm Jones|Howard}}
|data-sort-value="North Carolina, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina|E.D. N.C.]]
|{{dts|2005|5|19}}
|{{dts|2012|1|8}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|James Parker|Jones}}
|data-sort-value="Virginia, Western" |[[United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia|W.D. Va.]]
|{{dts|2015|5|19}}
|{{dts|2022|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Bill|Clinton}}
|-
|{{sortname|George P.|Kazen}}
|data-sort-value="Texas, Southern" |[[United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas|S.D. Tex.]]
|{{dts|2003|7|15}}
|{{dts|2010|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Jimmy|Carter}}
|-
|{{sortname|John F.|Keenan}}
|data-sort-value="New York, Southern" |[[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|S.D. N.Y.]]
|{{dts|1994|7|24}}
|{{dts|2001|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|Colleen|Kollar-Kotelly}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|2002|5|19}}
|{{dts|2009|5|18}}
|{{dts|2002|5|19}}
|{{dts|2009|5|18}}
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Bill|Clinton}}
|-
|{{sortname|Robert B.|Kugler}}
|data-sort-value="New Jersey" |[[United States District Court for the District of New Jersey|D. N.J.]]
|{{dts|2017|5|19}}
|{{dts|2024|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Frederick Bernard|Lacey}}
|data-sort-value="New Jersey" |[[United States District Court for the District of New Jersey|D. N.J..]]
|{{dts|1979|5|19}}
|{{dts|1985|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|Richard|Nixon}}
|-
|{{sortname|Royce|Lamberth}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|1995|5|19}}
|{{dts|2002|5|18}}
|{{dts|1995|5|19}}
|{{dts|2002|5|18}}
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|Thomas Jamison|MacBride}}
|data-sort-value="California, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of California|E.D. Cal.]]
|{{dts|1979|5|19}}
|{{dts|1980|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|John F.|Kennedy}}
|-
|{{sortname|Lloyd Francis|MacMahon}}
|data-sort-value="New York, Southern" |[[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|S.D. N.Y.]]
|{{dts|1985|7|5}}
|{{dts|1989|4|8}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|Dwight|Eisenhower}}
|-
|{{sortname|Frank James|McGarr}}
|data-sort-value="Illinois, Northern" |[[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois|N.D. Ill.]]
|{{dts|1979|5|19}}
|{{dts|1983|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|Richard|Nixon}}
|-
|{{sortname|Mary A.|McLaughlin}}
|data-sort-value="Pennsylvania, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania|E.D. Pa.]]
|{{dts|2008|5|19}}
|{{dts|2015|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Bill|Clinton}}
|-
|{{sortname|James Hargrove|Meredith}}
|data-sort-value="Missouri, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri|E.D. Mo.]]
|{{dts|1979|5|19}}
|{{dts|1981|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|John F.|Kennedy}}
|-
|{{sortname|Wendell Alverson|Miles}}
|data-sort-value="Michigan, Western" |{{nowrap|[[United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan|W.D. Mich.]]}}
|{{dts|1989|9|21}}
|{{dts|1996|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Richard|Nixon}}
|-
|{{sortname|Michael W.|Mosman}}
|data-sort-value="Oregon" |[[United States District Court for the District of Oregon|D. Ore.]]
|{{dts|2013|5|4}}
|{{dts|2020|5|3}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Herbert Frazier|Murray}}
|data-sort-value="Maryland" |[[United States District Court for the District of Maryland|D. Md.]]
|{{dts|1986|5|19}}
|{{dts|1993|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|Richard|Nixon}}
|-
|rowspan=2 |{{sortname|James Ellsworth|Noland}}
|rowspan=2 data-sort-value="Indiana, Southern" |[[United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana|S.D. Ind.]]
|rowspan=2 |{{dts|1983|5|19}}
|rowspan=2 |{{dts|1990|5|18}}
|rowspan=2 |{{dts|1988|5|19}}
|rowspan=2 |{{dts|1990|5|18}}
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}<br>{{small|(as Judge)}}
|rowspan=2 |{{sortname|Lyndon|Johnson}}
|-
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}<br>{{small|(as Presiding)}}
|-
|-
|{{sortname|Liam|O'Grady}}
|data-sort-value="Virginia, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia|E.D. Va.]]
|{{dts|2020|8|21}}
|{{dts|2023|8|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|William Clark|O'Kelley}}
|data-sort-value="Georgia, Northern" |[[United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia|N.D. Ga.]]
|{{dts|1980|5|19}}
|{{dts|1987|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|Richard|Nixon}}
|-
|{{sortname|Lawrence W.|Pierce}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|1979|5|19}}
|{{dts|1981|1|1}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|Richard|Nixon}}
|-
|{{sortname|James|Robertson|dab=judge}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|2002|5|19}}
|{{dts|2008|12|19}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Bill|Clinton}}
|-
|{{sortname|Thomas B.|Russell}}
|data-sort-value="Kentucky, Western" |[[United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky|W.D. Ky.]]
|{{dts|2015|5|19}}
|{{dts|2022|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Bill|Clinton}}
|-
|{{sortname|F. Dennis|Saylor IV}}
|data-sort-value="Massachusetts" |[[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts|D. Mass.]]
|{{dts|2011|5|19}}
|{{dts|2018|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Charles|Schwartz Jr.}}
|data-sort-value="Louisiana, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana|E.D. La.]]
|{{dts|1992|8|5}}
|{{dts|1999|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Gerald|Ford}}
|-
|{{sortname|Frederick|Scullin}}
|data-sort-value="New York, Northern" |[[United States District Court for the Northern District of New York|N.D. N.Y.]]
|{{dts|2004|5|19}}
|{{dts|2011|1|8}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|George H. W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|John Lewis|Smith Jr.}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|1982|5|19}}
|{{dts|1988|5|18}}
|{{dts|1982|5|19}}
|{{dts|1988|5|18}}
|{{sortname|Warren|Burger|Warren E. Burger}}
|{{sortname|Lyndon|Johnson}}
|-
|{{sortname|William Henry|Stafford Jr.}}
|data-sort-value="Florida, Northern" |[[United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida|N.D. Fla.]]
|{{dts|1996|5|19}}
|{{dts|2003|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Gerald|Ford}}
|-
|{{sortname|Ralph Gordon|Thompson}}
|data-sort-value="Oklahoma, Western" |[[United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma|W.D. Okla.]]
|{{dts|1990|6|11}}
|{{dts|1997|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|William|Rehnquist}}
|{{sortname|Gerald|Ford}}
|-
|{{sortname|Roger|Vinson}}
|data-sort-value="Florida, Northern" |[[United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida|N.D. Fla.]]
|{{dts|2006|5|4}}
|{{dts|2013|5|3}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|-
|{{sortname|Reggie|Walton}}
|data-sort-value="District of Columbia" |[[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|D. D.C.]]
|{{dts|2007|5|19}}
|{{dts|2014|5|18}}
|{{dts|2013|2|22}}
|{{dts|2014|5|18}}
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|Susan Webber|Wright}}
|data-sort-value="Arkansas, Eastern" |[[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas|E.D. Ark.]]
|{{dts|2009|5|19}}
|{{dts|2016|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|George H. W.|Bush}}
|-
|{{sortname|James|Zagel}}
|data-sort-value="Illinois, Northern" |[[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois|N.D. Ill.]]
|{{dts|2008|5|19}}
|{{dts|2015|5|18}}
| –
| –
|{{sortname|John|Roberts}}
|{{sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
|}
==Seat succession==
{{col-begin}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Presiding Judge}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[George Luzerne Hart Jr.|Hart]]
|term = 1979–1982}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[John Lewis Smith Jr.|Smith]]
|term = 1982–1988}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[James Ellsworth Noland|Noland]]
|term = 1988–1990}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Joyce Hens Green|Green]]
|term = 1990–1995}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Royce Lamberth|Lamberth]]
|term = 1995–2002}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Colleen Kollar-Kotelly|Kollar-Kotelly]]
|term = 2002–2009}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[John D. Bates|Bates]]
|term = 2009–2013}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Reggie Walton|Walton]]
|term = 2013–2014}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Thomas F. Hogan|Hogan]]
|term = 2014–2016}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Rosemary M. Collyer|Collyer]]
|term = 2016–2019}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[James Boasberg|Boasberg]]
|term = 2020–2021}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Rudolph Contreras|Contreras]]
|term = 2021–2023}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[Anthony Trenga|Trenga]]'''
|term = {{nowrap|2023–present}}}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Seat 1}}
{{U.S. judge succession note
|text = Established on October 25, 1978<br>by the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]]}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[George Luzerne Hart Jr.|Hart]]
|term = 1979–1982}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[John Lewis Smith Jr.|Smith]]
|term = 1982–1988}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Wendell Alverson Miles|Miles]]
|term = 1989–1996}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[William Henry Stafford Jr.|Stafford]]
|term = 1996–2003}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[George P. Kazen|Kazen]]
|term = 2003–2010}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Martin Leach-Cross Feldman|Feldman]]
|term = 2010–2017}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Robert B. Kugler|Kugler]]
|term = 2017–2024}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[Karin Immergut|Immergut]]'''
|term = 2024–present}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Seat 2}}
{{U.S. judge succession note
|text = Established on October 25, 1978<br>by the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]]}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Albert Vickers Bryan Jr.|Bryan]]
|term = 1979–1986}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Herbert Frazier Murray|Murray]]
|term = 1986–1993}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[James C. Cacheris|Cacheris]]
|term = 1993–2000}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Claude M. Hilton|Hilton]]
|term = 2000–2007}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Roger Vinson|Vinson]]
|term = 2006–2013}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Michael W. Mosman|Mosman]]
|term = 2013–2020}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Liam O'Grady|O'Grady]]
|term = 2020–2023}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[Carl J. Nichols|Nichols]]'''
|term = 2024–present}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Seat 3}}
{{U.S. judge succession note
|text = Established on October 25, 1978<br>by the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]]}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Frederick Bernard Lacey|Lacey]]
|term = 1979–1985}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Lloyd Francis MacMahon|MacMahon]]
|term = 1985–1989}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Sidney Aronovitz|Aronovitz]]
|term = 1989–1992}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Charles Schwartz Jr.|Schwartz]]
|term = 1992–1999}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Harold Baker (judge)|Baker]]
|term = 1999–2005}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Malcolm Jones Howard|Howard]]
|term = 2005–2012}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Raymond Dearie|Dearie]]
|term = 2012–2019}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[Louis Guirola Jr.|Guirola]]'''
|term = 2019–present}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-end}}
{{col-begin}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Seat 4}}
{{U.S. judge succession note
|text = Established on October 25, 1978<br>by the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]]}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Thomas Jamison MacBride|MacBride]]
|term = 1979–1980}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[William Clark O'Kelley|O'Kelley]]
|term = 1980–1987}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Conrad K. Cyr|Cyr]]
|term = 1987–1989}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Frank Harlan Freedman|Freedman]]
|term = 1990–1994}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[John F. Keenan|Keenan]]
|term = 1994–2001}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Nathaniel M. Gorton|Gorton]]
|term = 2001–2008}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Reggie Walton|Walton]]
|term = 2007–2014}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[James Boasberg|Boasberg]]
|term = 2014–2021}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[Amit Mehta|Mehta]]'''
|term = 2021–present}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Seat 5}}
{{U.S. judge succession note
|text = Established on October 25, 1978<br>by the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]]}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Frank James McGarr|McGarr]]
|term = 1979–1983}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[James Ellsworth Noland|Noland]]
|term = 1983–1990}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Ralph Gordon Thompson|Thompson]]
|term = 1990–1997}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Stanley Brotman|Brotman]]
|term = 1997–2004}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Frederick Scullin|Scullin]]
|term = 2004–2011}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Jennifer B. Coffman|Coffman]]
|term = 2011–2013}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Claire Eagan|Eagan]]
|term = 2013–2019}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[George Z. Singal|Singal]]'''
|term = 2019–present}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Seat 6}}
{{U.S. judge succession note
|text = Established on October 25, 1978<br>by the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]]}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[James Hargrove Meredith|Meredith]]
|term = 1979–1981}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Dudley Baldwin Bonsal|Bonsal]]
|term = 1981–1984}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Edward Devitt|Devitt]]
|term = 1985–1992}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Earl H. Carroll|Carroll]]
|term = 1993–1999}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Michael J. Davis|Davis]]
|term = 1999–2006}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[John D. Bates|Bates]]
|term = 2006–2013}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Rosemary M. Collyer|Collyer]]
|term = 2013–2020}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[Anthony Trenga|Trenga]]'''
|term = 2020–present}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Seat 7}}
{{U.S. judge succession note
|text = Established on October 25, 1978<br>by the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]]}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Lawrence W. Pierce|Pierce]]
|term = 1979–1981}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Frederick Alvin Daugherty|Daugherty]]
|term = 1981–1988}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Joyce Hens Green|Green]]
|term = 1988–1995}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Royce Lamberth|Lamberth]]
|term = 1995–2002}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Robert C. Broomfield|Broomfield]]
|term = 2002–2009}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Susan Webber Wright|Webber Wright]]
|term = 2009–2016}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Anne C. Conway|A. Conway]]
|term = 2016–2023}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[Timothy D. DeGiusti|DeGiusti]]'''
|term = 2023–present}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-end}}
{{col-begin}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Seat 8}}
{{U.S. judge succession note
|text = Established on October 26, 2001<br>by the [[Patriot Act]]}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[James G. Carr|Carr]]
|term = 2002–2008}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Mary A. McLaughlin|McLaughlin]]
|term = 2008–2015}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[James Parker Jones|Jones]]
|term = 2015–2022}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[Kenneth M. Karas|Karas]]'''
|term = 2022–present}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Seat 9}}
{{U.S. judge succession note
|text = Established on October 26, 2001<br>by the [[Patriot Act]]}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[John Edwards Conway|J. Conway]]
|term = 2002–2003}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Dee Benson|Benson]]
|term = 2004–2011}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[F. Dennis Saylor IV|Saylor]]
|term = 2011–2018}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[John Tharp|Tharp]]'''
|term = 2018–present}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Seat 10}}
{{U.S. judge succession note
|text = Established on October 26, 2001<br>by the [[Patriot Act]]}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[James Robertson (judge)|Robertson]]
|term = 2002–2008}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[James Zagel|Zagel]]
|term = 2008–2015}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Thomas B. Russell|Russell]]
|term = 2015–2022}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[Joan N. Ericksen|Ericksen]]'''
|term = 2023–present}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-break}}
{{start U.S. judge succession
|seat title = Seat 11}}
{{U.S. judge succession note
|text = Established on October 26, 2001<br>by the [[Patriot Act]]}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Colleen Kollar-Kotelly|Kollar-Kotelly]]
|term = 2002–2009}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Thomas F. Hogan|Hogan]]
|term = 2009–2016}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = [[Rudolph Contreras|Contreras]]
|term = 2016–2023}}
{{U.S. judge succession row
|name = '''[[Sara Elizabeth Lioi|Lioi]]'''
|term = 2023–present}}
{{end U.S. judge succession}}
{{col-end}}
==See also==
{{portal|United States|Law}}
*[[Commission nationale de contrôle des interceptions de sécurité]]
*''[[In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001]]''
*[[NSA call database]]
*[[NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)]]
*[[Operation CHAOS]]
==References==
=== Citations ===
{{notelist}}
=== General references===
{{Reflist|30em}}
{{FISA Court}}
{{United States intelligence agencies}}
{{Presidency of Jimmy Carter}}
{{Authority control}}
[[Category:United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court| ]]
[[Category:1978 establishments in Washington, D.C.]]
[[Category:Courts and tribunals established in 1978]]