Sentences with phrase «fisc as»

After all, charters are public schools too — and their students have as strong a moral claim on the public fisc as conventional pupils.

Not exact matches

As required by statute (50 USC 1805 (d)(1)-RRB-, a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause.

It added: «The OIG will review the DOJ's and FBI's relationship and communications with the alleged source as they relate to the FISC applications.»

As required by statute (50 U.S.C. 1805 (d)(1)-RRB- a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause.

Comey, according to the memo, signed off on three FISA applications when it pursued the warrant to surveil Page in FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) during his tenure as FBI director.

They are made to act — and should want to act — as agents of the public fisc who can not rightfully use the tax funds paid under duress of law by all the people — of many faiths and no faith — for the imposition of the religious beliefs or for the institutional advantage or aggrandizement of the sponsoring church.

As the recent decision in Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York shows, even state constitutional guarantees of «a sound basic education» may mean no more than a «minimally adequate» education that enables a person only to hold some job, and to not «be a charge on the public fisc.»

Unlike the FISC - R, the lower FISC has been quite busy over the years, in its primary role as an «approver» of the government's surveillance applications.

At the FISC, legal advisors function as neither law clerks nor magistrates.

Although the FISC has only recently become the target of criticism, it was originally created in 1978 to act as a check on the power of the executive.

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

As it stands now, looking again at the FISC - R's 2008 order (pdf), you wouldn't even know who — the NSA or the FBI or Martians — is making the application.

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

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 precedentiaas 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 precedentiaas 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 precedentiaAs 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 precedentiaas precedential.

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.

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.

This Comment joins other work in arguing that the legitimacy of stare decisis depends upon widespread publication.4 The doctrine of stare decisis itself emerged only with the consistent and reliable publication of court opinions, 5 and legal processes that do not result in the issuance of publicly available opinions, such as settlements and arbitrations, generally lack stare decisis norms altogether.6 Although previous scholarship has discussed the proper role of stare decisis in the context of «unpublished» opinions, 7 which make up around eighty percent of all United States courts of appeals opinions8 (and are usually publicly available despite their name), 9 this Comment provides the first examination of the tenability of stare decisis as applied to truly secret opinions like those of the FISC.

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.

As is typical in warrant applications, only the government party seeking the warrant is allowed to attend most FISC proceedings, since including the party the warrant is sought against would often defeat the purpose of the application itself.