Sentences with phrase «in fisc»

Reading them, it becomes clear that litigation in the FISC is the government's show.

Would it make litigating in the FISC more meaningful for private lawyers like Zwillinger and the providers he represents?

Litigating in the FISC is like arguing with a brick wall.

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.

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.

Mr. Flaherty reiterated that the eventual head of the national securities regulator he is seeking to create will join the FISC, completing a model that is being considered in the United States and the European Union.

But I would argue that nothing has really changed in policymakers» attitudes towards spending, that the federal fisc has been rescued by the happy accident of aggressive revenue collection and decent economic growth.

I haven't seen any good estimates of this effect, but given the current «cost» of the federal dividend tax credit regime (roughly $ 3 billion a year), it's probably not unreasonable to think that a 50 + % increase in the federal corporate tax rate (from 15 % to 24 %) might cost the fisc.

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.

Since these «mixed» ventures may not always be the churches» most direct or effective way of fulfilling their central function of explaining the ultimate meaning of life to their adherents — and certainly not if muffled by the requirements of public fisc — perhaps churches should be less eager to enter into what can at best be but a very unequal partnership with the public, and less tenacious in clinging to «mixed» institutions rather than letting them spin off to nonsectarian auspices.

The Rockefeller Institute's analysis, which revived Senator Moynihan's «Fisc» reports, found that New York is the largest donor state to the federal government, while getting the least back in return.

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.»

DSPBR Micrcap exclusively invests in small cap stocks whose Marlet cap is 2881 Cr whereas FISC avg market cap is 6481 Cr.

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.

And though he has also litigated in the lower FISC — the so - called «rubber stamp» for approving government surveillance applications — Zwillinger did not know how to describe the place when I asked him.

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.

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.

The FISC - R recently released a heavily - redacted version of its 2008 order (pdf), in which it concluded that the directive was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

This was only the second order to come down from the FISC - R in its lifetime.

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.

If you go before the FISC, in other words, you will have to respond to a redacted version of the government's pleadings, while everyone else knows what's actually going on.

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.

Apparently — and Baker does seem quite earnest — we are to take him at his word about how well the FISC works in balancing the interests of national security and citizens» privacy.

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.

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.

Aug. 29, 2013)(citing a previous FISC opinion: «See In Re Production of Tangible Things From [Redacted], Docket No.

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.

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 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.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, enacted in 1978,10 sets up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a specialized Article III court with the power to hear and grant government requests for foreign surveillance.11 The FISC's work consists almost entirely of ex parte proceedings granting, modifying, and denying government requests for the authority to conduct surveillance or searches, or to compel the production of tangible things.12

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.

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.

The published opinions currently available may constitute the entire work of the Court of Review — that is, there may in fact be no extant unpublished precedential opinions from the Court of Review or the en banc FISC, but the current legal regime does allow for such opinions to exist.

In rejecting the new minimization procedures, the FISC stated that» [i] n virtually every instance, the government's misstatements and omissions in FISA applications and violations of the Court's orders involved information sharing and unauthorized disseminations to criminal investigators and prosecutors.&raquIn rejecting the new minimization procedures, the FISC stated that» [i] n virtually every instance, the government's misstatements and omissions in FISA applications and violations of the Court's orders involved information sharing and unauthorized disseminations to criminal investigators and prosecutors.&raquin FISA applications and violations of the Court's orders involved information sharing and unauthorized disseminations to criminal investigators and prosecutors.»

These abuses were discovered by the Justice Department and reported to the FISC in 2000.

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 FISIn 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 FISin affidavits submitted to the court that the judges barred the agent responsible from ever appearing again before the FISC.