« Miranda warning to library users | Main | To bloggers: do you have to cough up your anonymous sources when you get a subpoena? »


The Coalition for Reader Privacy was promoting access to the federal courts, not the FISA courts. The FISA court's procedures are unknown and its hearings and decisions are secret. Access to the federal courts was not included in the compromise bill. There is no apparent reason why federal judges are not competent to hear Section 215 challenges, and such access was a part of previous versions of the bill. Regarding National Security Letters, the final rule on these is not yet clear, and is currently being litigated. That's the Connecticut library consortium case.

Susan, with regard to court challenges, the CRP document you link to states that, "The bill outlines a new procedure that would allow recipients of Section 215 orders to challenge them in the secret FISA court [...]."

GWU law professor Orin Kerr also says in his initial reaction to the bill at the Volokh Conspiracy blog that, "The FISA Court of Review can hear appeals from the FISA court's resolution of those challenges, and the losing party can then file a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court."

Also with regard to gag orders, the CRP document does not say that a provision for gag order changes was not included, and Orin Kerr writes in his response, "recipients of NSLs can file a petition in any district court in which they live or do business asking the district court to modify or set aside the order on the ground that compliance would be 'unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful.' They can also petition the court for permission to no longer be bound by the gag orders that accompany NSLs," etc.

Does this all square with what you write in your post?

The comments to this entry are closed.