Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

In re: Sealed Case Nos. 02-001, 02-002

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
310 F.3d 717 (2002)


Facts

After the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-62, and the disposition of various cases related to foreign intelligence surveillance, including U.S. vs. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) interpreted the “purpose” language in FISA to mean that the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the object of the search is a foreign power, its agent, or collaborator and only if the search is conducted primarily for a foreign intelligence purpose. To ensure that the “primary purpose” requirement was satisfied, a number of procedures were adopted by both the Attorney General and the DOJ, mandating a barrier to prevent Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) intelligence officers from communicating with law enforcement agents regarding ongoing foreign intelligence investigations. In October 2001, in response, Congress passed the Patriot Act (PA), 50 U.S.C. § 1806(k), an amendment to FISA. The PA changed the “purpose” language in FISA to a “significant purpose” and added a provision allowing officers who conduct surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence to consult with federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against attacks or hostile acts. On July 19, 2002, the government submitted a surveillance application for approval, and the FISA court granted the order with various restrictions, including that law enforcement officials shall not make recommendations to intelligence officials concerning FISA surveillances, even after the PA expressly allowed consultation and coordination between the two groups of officials. The government appealed the order, arguing that the primary purpose test was not a legitimate construction of FISA in the first place, and even assuming that it was, the PA altered it.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Guy, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.