Sentences with phrase «fisc judges»

In the absence of publication, the FISC judges should afford no formal deference to past interpretations — even the opinions of the Court of Review or the en bancFISC.

21 These bases for en banc jurisdiction suggest that individual FISC judges must give stare decisis effect to any en banc panel decision that is not overturned by the Court of Review because, absent such a practice, the en banc panels would not fulfill one of their two statutory purposes: to secure or maintain uniformity.

Although it is hard to be certain without more publicly available information, FISC judges likely treat their opinions as non-precedential, as is standard practice for federal district courts.19 The relatively few public FISC opinions do cite earlier FISC opinions and principles of law, 20 but we have seen no clear evidence to suggest that the judges feel formally bound by those earlier opinions in any manner that would set them apart from other Article III district courts.

En bancreview involves a panel of all eleven FISC judges and must be ordered by a majority of the FISC judges based on a determination that «(i) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or (ii) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.»

The seven FISC judges are Article III judges, selected by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

So from Zwillinger's perspective, the role of independent counsel should be much more than running to argue in the public interest when FISC judges call for them to do so.

Carr testified alongside Zwillinger on November 4th on the way FISC judges consider individual surveillance applications.

According to Carr, so - called «legal advisors» do the job of vetting surveillance applications even before they get into FISC judges» hands.

But James Carr, who served as a FISC judge from 2002 to 2008, has a different opinion.

Carr, the former FISC judge, seems to believe that judges should have the opportunity to call on independent counsel on an as - needed basis.

Not exact matches

A FISA warrant application for Page would have included any and all information the FBI felt a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) judge should see in order to grant a warrant in the first place.

Moreover, doctrinal entrenchment is particularly problematic in the FISA courts, where secrecy and institutional context indicate that outside efforts at doctrinal reform are less likely to be effective than they are with courts that publish their opinions.35 Unlike published opinions, secret opinions can not provoke the public into lobbying for a legislative override36 or judicial overruling37 — two important paths of legal reform.38 Perhaps to hedge against the risks of limited external oversight, FISA limits FISC and Court of Review judges to non-renewable, seven - year terms, 39 a provision suggesting that Congress envisioned a FISA court whose membership would be responsive to shifting factual circumstances and policy priorities.40 Stare decisis, which requires judges to adhere to interpretations of law that they might otherwise reject as unjust or unpersuasive, constrains these judges» ability to adapt to such factual and policy shifts.

In terms of its core function, the FISC is effectively a federal district court.18 The vast majority of its work involves a single judge's determinations of the legality of government requests to authorize surveillance or compel production.

The courts could retain discretion over whether to publish opinions not treated as binding on future judges.62 Therefore, every precedential opinion of the Court of Review and every FISC en banc opinion should be published in redacted form.

Pursuant to the statute, the FISC consists of eleven Article III district court judges, selected by the Chief Justice of the United States.13 All applications are considered by a single judge and can not be reheard by another judge of the FISC except when the court sits en banc.14 FISA provides for both en banc consideration and appeals to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review).

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.