Talk:United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

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 U.S. Constitution."

The phrase "secret law written by the court" is a little misleading based on the NYT article that's cited. The first paragraph reads:

"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 while pursuing not only terrorism suspects, but also people possibly involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage and cyberattacks, officials say."

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianDeacon (talk • contribs) 01:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The FISA warrants section also has tone issues that make for an inflamed entry, such as putting "reasonably believed" in quotes for apparent emphasis or irony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainlogic (talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

section title
How is "Court's secret law guts 4th Amendment" not a POV section title? 13.8.137.10 (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been changed. --Elvey (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
On May 17, 2002, the court rebuffed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, releasing an opinion that alleged that FBI and Justice Department officials had "supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh".[2] What about In Re Sealed Case? Amcfreely 00:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

gramatical error
The word "lead" is used incorrectly:

It reads: As a result of the minimal number of requests that are modified by the court, it has lead experts

It should read: As a result of the minimal number of requests that are modified by the court, it has led experts

Thenonprophet (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been changed. --Elvey (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move – Terminology: FISC vs FISA [C|c]ourt

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court → FISA Court – Rationale for the proposed page name change:WP:COMMONNAME. Evidence: in ~all the citations and references, it's called the FISA Court. Intend to change article to match after move: 'FISC' to 'court' or 'FISA Court', as most appropriate for that particular replacement. Also, google news search engine results: https://www.google.com/search?q=fisa+court&tbm=nws vs https://www.google.com/search?q=fisc+court&tbm=nws ~ 8:1. Elvey (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment several of the FISA also have courts. Perhaps U.S. FISA Court instead. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" has 48,000 hits compared to "FISA Court" which has 18,000. It also doesn't follow the consistency aspect in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA being that there are other FISA courts out there. For one instance, United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. So if the article was moved there be one named "FISA Court" and the other named "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review". —  - dain   omite    03:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh Oppose. This thing has a *correct* name. And the proposed name is unduly acronymous.  FISA is the act, anyway.  It's all wrong. -- Y not? 18:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see any use in reliable sources of "FISA Court" as a name for this court, let alone as a WP:COMMONNAME.  I see it being referenced as the "FISA court"; not as a proper noun, but merely as a point of identification, i.e., the court associated with FISA.  If the 'C' in "court" were capitalized, that might suggest it's being used as a name, but that does not occur.  The only time I see "FISA Court" with a capital 'C' is in headlines, as a stylistic consequence of every significant word being capitalized, not as an indication it's used as a name. TJRC (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * - re. "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" has 48,000 hits compared to "FISA Court" which has 18,000. - where? --Elvey (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

FISC vs FISA Court
TJRC: Are you serious? What part of "Evidence: in ~all the citations and references, it's called the FISA Court." did you not understand? When I see you say "I don't see any use in reliable sources of "FISA Court" I can't help think you're acting like an ostrich.  And yet apparently that's your justification for reverting my edit!   Do you wish to challenge my count of 5 uses vs 0 in the Notes and References section of the article? --Elvey (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You've ignored me and replied below, so I'll take that as a acceptance of my edits - RBD and all...--Elvey (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see a way of deciphering your intent now - in reverting you were being pointy about C vs c, instead of changing or suggesting a change from C to c. --Elvey (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Adversarial court
The article says the court is not an adversarial court, but various sections of the official rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (found here: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf) make reference to adversarial proceedings.

Notably these sections:

Rule 7 Filing Applications, Certifications, Petitions, Motions, or Other Papers ("Submissions ") Section i: "Information Concerning Security Clearances in Adversarial Proceedings. A party other than the government must: "

Rule 7 Filing Applications, Certifications, Petitions, Motions, or Other Papers ("Submissions ") Section j: "Ex Parte Review. At the request of the government in an adversarial proceeding, the Judge must review ex parte and in camera any submissions by the government..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.2 (talk) 19 June 2013


 * Here's an example of an adversarial case in the court:


 * in re Motion for Declaratory Judgment of Google Inc.'s First Amendment Right to Publish Aggregate Information About FISA Orders, No. ________ (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Ct. June __, 2013).
 * in re Motion for Declaratory Judgment of Google Inc.'s First Amendment Right to Publish Aggregate Information About FISA Orders, No. ________ (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Ct. June __, 2013).


 * The court is so secret there's not even a Bluebook rule for citing to it! TJRC (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Its not even close to as adversarial as normal court systems. The secrecy of filings largely precluded the possibility of opposition.  Of tens of thousands of filings before the court, only a handful were opposed; overwhelmingly there was no adversary arguing against the government position. (As Gotein and the NYT have stated.)--Elvey (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources about the FISC
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * VN, Sreeja. "FISC Will Not Object To Release of 2011 Court Opinion That Confirmed NSA’s Illegal Surveillance." International Business Times. June 13, 2013.

Graphics Lab request for graph(s) to replace table of Search Warrants authorized by the court by year
I made one. It's here. FYI.--Elvey (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

New sources
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (Already cited but needs expansion.)
 * (Already cited but needs expansion.)
 * (Already cited but needs expansion.)

Quotefarm
Way too many block quotes in this article. Several sections need to be re-written. The block quotes need to be broken down or removed and paraphrased. Remember that material from reliable sources generally need not be quoted or attributed, just paraphrased. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

NSA surveillance controversy
P3Y229, please consider tightening up the "NSA surveillance controversy" section considerably as there's already a main article on it much of it doesn't involve the FISC. We should have perhaps three paragraphs max and it should focus exclusively on the FISC's involvement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Done with this edit. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Complete membership history


Time to populate the article. NW ( Talk ) 12:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have completed the histories for both this article and the FISCR article. NW ( Talk ) 14:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Examples of terrorists thwarted? Buying exploits and leaving them unpatched? Repeal?
What is the current status of examples where FISA-approved surveillance thwarted terrorist plots? They've in the past had trouble identifying any.

What is the status of the government purchasing exploits on the black market and leaving them unpatched? I.e. per, , , , ? Is there any way to do that which doesn't effectively fund organized crime?

Should this article cover ? EllenCT (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please help on Motion of the American Civil Liberties Union for the Release of Court Records
I created this article as a stub from two RS news sources, Reuters and The Guardian, and put a link to the actual motion in the external links section. Please help fill out the article and other articles to serve as context. Thanks. MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This court is currently powerless.
As Trump has fired the only person authorized to give out FISA warrants. Lots42 (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Presidential Election Trump Wiretapping Allegations
We need more sources that are reliable, Breitbart shouldn't be the only sourced information. We need further sources that won't go though one likely source. Furthermore, if it is true then it would suggest that the FISA court found probable cause linking his Trump's campaign to Russian officials. Until there is another source that says the same exact thing and not allegations, I've marked it as needing additional citations and not one that can be directly tied to the assistant to the president whose was the previous head of the news source aswell. Coasterghost (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

2016 Trump Election Controversy
I noticed that someone mentioned that we need new sources in this category and I would like to add new information from another source. This information also includes updated information about the democrats response to the Nunes Memo. I would liek this text to be added at the bottom. "On February 24th, the democrats released a redacted response memo to the controversial Nunes Memo. In their response memo, the democrats reveal that the judges were informed where the dossier came from which was a key concern of the Nunes memo. They, however, knew that it came from a source the FBI considered to be politically biased. The Republicans continue to argue that it was so hidden in a footnote that it was not clear and difficult to find. The republican complaints hold little significance as it has been proven that many of them were not actually problems but it is clear that they are not going to stop. Although the democratic memo addresses many concerns in the dossier, they also corroborated some of the information, although that information is a part that was redacted from the public copy." it came from here https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nunes-memo-continues-to-backfire/2018/02/26/6647de50-1b2d-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.be17711b3a00 Jpiace (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Better text is already included that complies with due weighting considerations and is cited to a news report instead of an opinion piece. This is better in terms of the neutral point of view policy Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018
I suggest this add to the last paragraph.

The Carter Page warrant application was released publicly in July 2018, marking the first time FISA warrant application materials were made public. The heavily-redacted, 412-page application cites many sources, including confidential informants and the Steele dossier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:e1c0:aaf0:584d:208f:f21a:cd1d (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2018‎ (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Which section do you want this to be added to? LittlePuppers (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Under composition, there is a reference to "as of 2017..." However, as of today, 5 judges have been appointed to their District Court positions by Democrats (Boasberg, Jones, Russell, Contreras, and Tharp). I note the judges' Wikipedia page. The article does not take into account John Tharp's addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:4001:53B9:44CE:10C8:B89E:78D5 (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Claim about Republicans criticizing the Nunes Memo is false.
According to the washington post article cited for the claim that both republican and democrat lawmakers criticized the Nunes memo, It was only senator John Thune who said he wanted the senate intelligence committee to review it first. He is only one in over 280 Republicans lawmakers at the time and even he didn't fully oppose releasing the memo.

I don't know how whoever wrote this came up with this claim. Please correct. Dmdaugert (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Claim removed. NedFausa (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosemary M. Collyer risigned, now she is just a simple judge in FISC
Court announced that presiding judge, Rosemary M. Collyer, is stepping down. Chief Justice of Supreme Court selected Judge James E. Boasberg to succeed her as Presiding judge....first judge appointed by a Democrat to lead Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court since 1995. https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Misc%2019%2002%20Scheduling%20Order%20PJ%20JEB%20200117.pdf Please edit it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:415:E2E3:FC0C:E582:EFF7:51D (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ New presiding judge is James E. Boasberg per . NedFausa (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Add info about FISC banning DOJ and FBI officials involved in spying on Trump compaign
from seeking further FISA applications https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/public-filings/corrected-opinion-and-order "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT no DOJ or FBI personnel under disciplinary or criminal review relating to their work on FISA applications shall participate in drafting, verifying, reviewing, or submitting such applications to the Court. Any finding of misconduct relating to the handling of FISA applications shall be promptly reported to the Court." and also add info about that laywer Kevin Clinesmith that modified the FISA docs to claim that Carter Page is not a CIA source https://heavy.com/news/2018/06/kevin-clinesmith-e/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:4881:3AF7:F422:31BF:DB3B:661F (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Clinesmith falsified documents that reversed the status of Carter Page. he was a CIA operative. Clinesmith changed that to say he wasn't. they had previously presented the documents to the FISA court. they were turned down. the court had 98% approval rating and still they were turned down. with Clinsmith's false documents and the bogus Steel dossier the court ruled that FISA could spy on the trump campaign. Trump was made aware of the spying by Admiral Rodgers who at the time was the head of NSA. after receiving the information the Trump campaign was moved out of the Trump towers headquarter to a property in New Bedford. 2607:FEA8:5BA0:7380:CD99:62DE:CEB8:5811 (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

authorship
Why isn't the author of this article listed? or is it and I am just not looking in the right place? The article sounds biased and I just would like to know its source. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.22.46 (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since its creation in October 2001, 323 editors have collaborated in writing this article, averaging 2.5 edits apiece. You can see an overview of the top editors here and the page's complete revision history here. NedFausa (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)