老澳门开奖结果

WASHINGTON 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 today petitioned the Supreme Court to review whether the public has a right to access the decisions of a special federal court that rules on the legality of government surveillance. The 老澳门开奖结果, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School, and former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson filed the petition regarding the rulings by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

鈥淪ecret court rulings are corrosive in a democracy, especially when they so often hand the government the power to peer into our digital lives,鈥� said Patrick Toomey, senior staff attorney at the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淎mericans鈥� privacy rights rise or fall with the court鈥檚 decisions, which increasingly apply outdated laws to the new technologies we rely on every day. These opinions are the law and they should be public, not kept hidden where only a secret court and the government know what they mean for our rights.鈥�

Congress created the FISC in 1978 to authorize and oversee electronic surveillance conducted for foreign intelligence purposes. The FISC鈥檚 role was originally narrow, but today, as the result of legislative changes and new technology, the court evaluates broad surveillance programs 鈥� including programs that involve the collection of emails, phone records, and internet browsing data 鈥� that can have profound implications for Americans鈥� privacy, expressive, and associational rights.

The FISC operates behind closed doors and does not customarily publish its decisions. Although Congress required the government to review significant FISC opinions for public release when it passed the USA FREEDOM Act in 2015, that review is conducted solely by executive branch officials, not a court. In addition, the government has refused to apply this requirement to FISC opinions issued prior to June 2015. All of the opinions at issue in this case predate June 2015 and have been withheld from the public in their entirety.

鈥淭his specialized court originally had a narrow role but today it routinely issues decisions that have far-reaching implications for Americans鈥� rights,鈥� said Theodore B. Olson, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush. Olson argued before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) and is now a member of the Knight Institute鈥檚 board. 鈥淚t鈥檚 crucial to the legitimacy of the foreign intelligence system, and to the democratic process, that the public have access to the court鈥檚 significant opinions. As we explain in our petition, it鈥檚 simply untenable to hold, as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court effectively did, that whether the court鈥檚 opinions are published is up to the executive branch alone to decide.鈥�

In motions filed over a period of almost a decade, the groups have argued that the First Amendment requires the FISC to make its legal opinions public, with only those redactions necessary to serve compelling government interests. Today鈥檚 petition asks the Supreme Court to review decisions that the FISC and FISCR issued in and of last year, which held that the courts lack jurisdiction even to consider whether the First Amendment guarantees the public a qualified right of access to the FISC鈥檚 opinions. The petition explains that disclosure of the FISC鈥檚 opinions would 鈥渆ducate the public about government activity that affects individual rights, ensure a more informed public debate about the reach of government surveillance, increase the perceived legitimacy of the FISC and the surveillance it authorizes, and allow other courts to engage with the FISC鈥檚 rulings, to the benefit of those courts as well as the FISC.鈥�

鈥淚nformed debate about government surveillance is impossible if the public doesn鈥檛 have access to the court opinions that evaluate the government鈥檚 surveillance activities,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute鈥檚 executive director. 鈥淧ublic access to these opinions will allow the public to better understand what the court has authorized and what the surveillance agencies are doing. Of course, it may sometimes be necessary to redact these opinions, but here, as in other contexts, the courts must ensure that redactions satisfy First Amendment standards. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court isn鈥檛 exempt from the First Amendment rules that apply to other courts.鈥�

Read today鈥檚 petition here:
/legal-document/supreme-court-petition-challenging-secrecy-us-surveillance-court

Read more about this case here:
/cases/aclu-motions-requesting-public-access-fisa-court-rulings-government-surveillance