The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has taken on a major role close to that of the U.S. Supreme Court in creating rulings and precedents and a body of law allowing U.S. intelligence agencies vast new powers. Now the court is under fire for its secrecy, insularity and lack of adversarial argument. (The New York Times, July 6, 2013, by Eric Lightblau)
The Wall Street Journal reported on one of the precedents established by the FISC in interpreting the word “relevant” in the Patriot Act to grant the National Security Agency the right to collect telephone data on U.S. citizens. (The Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2013, by Jennifer Valentino-DeVries and Siobhan Gorman)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized the FISC for acting in secrecy and making such weighty decisions as a panel appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, an unelected official. (EFF, July 10, 2013, by Trevor Timm)
Alison Frankel raised the question of the constitutionality of the FISC under the Fourth Amendment. In a challenge to the FISC approval of massive data collection, “…ACLU staff lawyers…argued that the 2008 law [authorizing FISC powers] is unconstitutional not only because it violates the Fourth Amendment strictures on unreasonable search and seizure but also because it authorizes the FISC to justify warrantless wiretapping through what are essentially advisory opinions the court is not constitutionally empowered to issue.” (Reuters, July 8, 2013, by Alison Frankel)