Case Title Redacted
United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
2011 WL 10945618 (2011)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Pursuant to § 702(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008, 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., the federal government (plaintiff), including the National Security Agency (NSA), was given permission to target individuals outside the United States suspected of terrorism or other criminal activity. The NSA could acquire electronic communications intended for or received from targeted persons. However, § 702(b) expressly prohibited the NSA from targeting an American citizen located outside of the country. The government wrote a letter dated May 2, 2011, to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), clarifying the upstream collection of transaction information. Upstream collection referred to the collection of information by tapping the United States data pipeline rather than targeting specific entities such as internet-service providers. These transactions contained either single or multiple communications (MCTs), including some that were neither “to/from” nor “about” targeted individuals. Some transactions included only domestic communications involving American citizens who posed no threat to national security. The FISC considered whether to grant the government’s request for approval of related certifications and procedures.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bates, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
