Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: November 8, 2021
Decided: March 4, 2022
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Samuel Alito • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 4, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on November 8, 2021. The court reversed and remanded the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in a 9-0 ruling, holding §1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) does not override the state-secrets privilege. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the unanimous opinion.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Three residents of Southern California who practice Islam filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. district court against the U.S. government, alleging that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) paid a confidential informant to surveil Muslims based solely on their religious identity for more than a year as part of a counterterrorism investigation, and that the program included unlawful searches and anti-Muslim discrimination. The U.S. government asserted the state-secrets privilege and moved to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed all but one of the plaintiffs' claims. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned the state-secrets privilege.
  • The questions presented: "Whether Section 1806(f) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence."[2]
  • The outcome: The court reversed and remanded the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in a 9-0 ruling.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.[3]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Three residents of Southern California who practice Islam filed a class action lawsuit against the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), two FBI officers, and five FBI agents in U.S. district court, alleging that the FBI paid a confidential informant to conduct a surveillance program to gather information about Muslims based solely on their religious identity for more than a year as part of a counterterrorism investigation. The plaintiffs alleged that the investigation included unlawful searches and anti-Muslim discrimination. The U.S. Attorney General asserted the state-secrets privilege, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Reynolds, and moved to dismiss the case. In Reynolds, the U.S. Supreme Court set precedence for courts to prevent the disclosure of state secrets by excluding privileged evidence and/or dismissing cases if national security interests are at stake. The district court dismissed all but one of the plaintiffs' claims based on the state-secrets privilege, including a Fourth Amendment claim, while the defendants had not sought to dismiss that claim based on privilege. The court allowed the plaintiffs' Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA")-related unlawful search claim to proceed. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the rest of their claims, and the FBI agent defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity on the FISA claim.[3][4]

    On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that some of the claims dismissed based on the state-secrets privilege should not have been dismissed and that the district court should have reviewed any relevant state secrets evidence to decide whether the alleged surveillance was unlawful under FISA. The court also held that some of the plaintiffs' allegations state a claim and others did not. The 9th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings related to the plaintiffs' stated claims.[3]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether Section 1806(f) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence.

    [5]

    		”

    Oral argument

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on November 8, 2021.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous opinion, the court reversed and remanded the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, holding FISA §1806(f) does not override the state-secrets privilege. The court emphasized that the ruling "addresses only the narrow question whether §1806(f) displaces the state secrets privilege." They did not decide which interpretation (the government's or the respondents') was correct.[1]

    Justice Alito wrote the court's opinion.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's unanimous opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[1]

    “

    The absence of any statutory reference to the state secrets privilege [in FISA] is strong evidence that the availability of the privilege was not altered in any way. ... The availability of dismissal pursuant to the state secrets privilege in at least some circumstances shows that the privilege and §1806(f) operate differently. ... For these reasons, we conclude that Congress did not eliminate, curtail, or modify the state secrets privilege when it enacted §1806(f). [5]

    		”
    —Justice Alito

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[9] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[10]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Supreme Court of the United States, Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, decided March 4, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. YASSIR FAZAGA, ET AL.: PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ," accessed June 7, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Fazaga v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, decided February 28, 2019
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices grant state secrets case, won’t tackle male-only draft," June 7, 2021
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 8, 2021
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 8, 2021
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    9. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    10. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation_v._Fazaga&oldid=8747814"