Not exact matches
In the
case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the
FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts.
And nearly all the big names in Internet service providers, from Google to Yahoo! to Facebook and others, are currently seeking a declaratory judgment from the
FISC - R (Zwillinger is again representing Yahoo! in this
case) asking the court for the authority to publish the number of surveillance demands — just the number — the government has made.
Marc Zwillinger is, in all likelihood, the only private lawyer in America to have argued a
case in front of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, or
FISC - R.
The Court of Review is an appellate court, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this
case, the
FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published
case of the
FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review
cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedential.
See Letter from Reggie B. Walton to Dianne Feinstein, supra note 58, at 2 («[I] n most
cases, the facts and the legal analysis are so inextricably intertwined that excising the classified information from the
FISC's analysis would result in a remnant void of much or any useful meaning.»).
In one
case, the
FISC was so angered by inaccuracies in affidavits submitted to the court that the judges barred the agent responsible from ever appearing again before the
FISC.