
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


FBI v. Fazaga | Case No. 20-828 | Date Argued: 11/8/2021 | Date Decided: 3/4/2022
Background: Section 1806 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., governs the "[u]se of information" obtained or derived from electronic surveillance conducted under FSIA. Section 1806(c) requires the government to notify a person of its intent to use or disclose such information against that person in a judicial or administrative proceeding in specified circumstances.
Question Presented: Whether Section 1806(f) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence.
Holding: Section 1806(f) does not displace the state secrets privilege.
Result: Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED.
Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
For Petitioners: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For Agent Respondents: Catherine M.A. Carroll, Washington, D.C. For Respondents Fazaga, et al.: Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Los Angeles, Cal.
By SCOTUS Oral Arguments4.3
66 ratings
FBI v. Fazaga | Case No. 20-828 | Date Argued: 11/8/2021 | Date Decided: 3/4/2022
Background: Section 1806 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., governs the "[u]se of information" obtained or derived from electronic surveillance conducted under FSIA. Section 1806(c) requires the government to notify a person of its intent to use or disclose such information against that person in a judicial or administrative proceeding in specified circumstances.
Question Presented: Whether Section 1806(f) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence.
Holding: Section 1806(f) does not displace the state secrets privilege.
Result: Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED.
Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
For Petitioners: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For Agent Respondents: Catherine M.A. Carroll, Washington, D.C. For Respondents Fazaga, et al.: Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Los Angeles, Cal.

25,875 Listeners

3,533 Listeners

372 Listeners

695 Listeners

1,118 Listeners

2,891 Listeners

6,296 Listeners

112,617 Listeners

32,371 Listeners

10,240 Listeners

7,071 Listeners

5,776 Listeners

3,882 Listeners

16,081 Listeners

738 Listeners