View source for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

{{Short description|1978 United States federal law}}
{{Redirect|FISA}}
{{Use American English|date=June 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2013}}
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| shorttitle      = Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
| longtitle       = An Act to authorize electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence information.
| acronym         = FISA
| nickname        =
| enacted by      = 95th
| effective date  = October 25, 1978
| public law url  = http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1783.pdf
| cite public law = 95-511
| cite statutes at large = {{usstat|92|1783}}
| acts amended    =
| acts repealed   =
| title amended   = [[Title 50 of the United States Code|50 U.S.C.: War and National Defense]]
| sections created = {{Usc-title-chap|50|36}} § 1801 ''et seq.''
| sections amended =
| leghisturl      = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d095:SN01566:@@@R
| introducedin    = [[United States Senate|Senate]]
| introducedbill  = {{USBill|95|S.|1566}}
| introducedby    = [[Ted Kennedy]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–[[Massachusetts|MA]])
| introduceddate  = May 18, 1977
| committees      = [[United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence|Senate Select Committee on Intelligence]], [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Committee on the Judiciary]]
| passedbody1     = [[United States Senate|Senate]]
| passeddate1     = April 20, 1978
| passedvote1     = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/95-1978/s764 95–1]
| passedbody2     = [[United States House of Representatives|House]]
| passedas2       = <!-- used if the second body changes the name of the legislation -->
| passeddate2     = September 7, 1978
| passedvote2     = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/95-1978/h1354 246–128], in lieu of {{USBill|95|H.R.|7308}}
| conferencedate  = October 5, 1978
| passedbody3     = [[United States Senate|Senate]]
| passeddate3     = October 9, 1978
| passedvote3     = Without objection
| passedbody4     = [[United States House of Representatives|House]]
| passeddate4     = October 12, 1978
| passedvote4     = [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/95-1978/h1498 226–176]
| signedpresident = [[Jimmy Carter]]
| signeddate      = October 25, 1978
| amendments      = {{unbulleted list|[[USA PATRIOT Act]]|[[Protect America Act of 2007]]|[[FISA Amendments Act of 2008]]|[[USA Freedom Act]]}}
| SCOTUS cases    = {{ubl|framestyle=line-height:1em|''[[Clapper v. Amnesty International USA]]'', {{ussc|568|398|2013}}|''[[Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga]]'', {{ussc|docket=20-828|volume=595|year=2022}}}}
}}

The '''Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978''' ('''FISA''', {{USStatute|95|511|92|1783}}, {{usctc|50|36}}) is a [[Law of the United States|United States federal law]] that establishes procedures for the [[surveillance]] and collection of foreign intelligence on domestic soil.<ref name=":0">[https://sgp.fas.org/crs/intel/IF11451.pdf ''Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): An Overview''] (updated April 6, 2021), [[Congressional Research Service]].</ref>

FISA was enacted in response to revelations of widespread privacy violations by the federal government [[Presidency of Richard Nixon|under president Richard Nixon]]. It requires [[Federal law enforcement in the United States|federal law enforcement]] and [[United States Intelligence Community|intelligence agencies]] to obtain authorization for gathering "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of [[espionage]] or [[terrorism]].<ref name="fisa">50 USC §1801(b)
"Agent of a foreign power means—<br />
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4), irrespective of whether the person is inside the United States;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances indicate that such person may engage in such activities, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities;
(C) engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore;
(D) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor; or
(E) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power, or knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such proliferation or activities in preparation therefor, or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such proliferation or activities in preparation therefor; or
(2) any person who—
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).</ref> The law established the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]] (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants.

Although FISA was initially limited to government use of electronic surveillance, subsequent amendments have broadened the law to regulate other intelligence-gathering methods, including physical searches, [[pen register]] and [[Trap and trace device|trap and trace]] (PR/TT) devices, and compelling the production of certain types of business records.<ref name=":0" />

FISA has been repeatedly amended since the [[September 11 attacks]], with several added provisions garnering political and public controversy due to privacy concerns.<ref name="Sabin">{{Cite web |last=Sabin |first=Sam |date=2023-01-17 |title=Washington prepares to weigh whether a FISA surveillance program should continue |url=https://www.axios.com/2023/01/17/fisa-government-surveillance-cia-fbi-section-702 |access-date=2023-04-10 |website=Axios |language=en}}</ref>

==History and background==
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] and was signed into law by President Carter on 25 October 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: [[Birch Bayh]], [[James O. Eastland]], [[Jake Garn]], [[Walter Huddleston]], [[Daniel Inouye]], [[Charles Mathias]], [[John L. McClellan]], [[Gaylord Nelson]], and [[Strom Thurmond]].

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by [[United States Senate#Committees|Senate Committees]] into the legality of domestic [[Intelligence (information gathering)|intelligence]] activities. These investigations were led separately by [[Sam Ervin]] and [[Frank Church]] in 1978 as a response to President [[Richard Nixon]]'s usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=15892 |title=FISA Debate Involves More Than Terrorism – Daily Nexus |access-date=2009-01-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090123213757/http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=15892 |archive-date=January 23, 2009 |df=mdy }}</ref><ref name="Arrigo2014">{{cite book|author=Bruce A. Arrigo|title=Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice Ethics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lZqlBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT1282|date=17 July 2014|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4833-8979-0|pages=1282–}}</ref> The law itself was crafted in large part in closed door meetings between legislators and members of the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]].<ref name="Gottfried2003">{{cite book|author=Ted Gottfried|title=Homeland Security Versus Constitutional Rights|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yISMmsnc17wC&pg=PA22|year=2003|publisher=Twenty-First Century Books|isbn=978-0-7613-2862-9|pages=22–}}</ref>
The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.{{wikisource|FISA Amendments Act of 2008}}

===Warrantless domestic wiretapping program===
{{Main|NSA warrantless surveillance controversy}}

FISA came into public prominence in December 2005 following an article in ''[[The New York Times]]'' that described a program of [[NSA warrantless surveillance controversy|warrantless domestic wiretapping]] ordered by the [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush administration]] and carried out by the [[National Security Agency]] since 2002;<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060206162614/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm|url-status=dead|title="Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts" (Dec. 16, 2005)|archive-date=February 6, 2006}}</ref> a subsequent ''[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]]'' article suggested this may have already begun by June 2000.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2006-06-30|title=Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060719031932/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE|archive-date=July 19, 2006|website=www.bloomberg.com}}</ref> Attorney General [[Alberto Gonzales]] later confirmed the existence of the program, which was codenamed [[Stellar Wind]].<ref>{{cite news |author1=James Risen |author2=Eric Lichtblau |name-list-style=amp |date=December 16, 2005 |title=Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all |access-date=December 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts |url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060206162614/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm |archive-date=February 6, 2006 |access-date=February 18, 2006 |work=NYT's Risen & Lichtblau's December 16, 2005 Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts |df=mdy}} via commondreams.org</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Calame |first=Byron |date=August 13, 2006 |title=Eavesdropping and the Election: An Answer on the Question of Timing |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/opinion/13pubed.html |access-date=May 20, 2010}}</ref>

{{wikisource|Protect America Act of 2007}}Without obtaining a FISA warrant, the NSA monitored [[Telephone call|phone calls]], Internet activities, text messages, and other forms of communication involving any party it believed to be outside the U.S., regardless of whether part of the communication took place domestically.<ref name="Savage">{{Cite news |last=Savage |first=Charlie |date=2023-02-27 |title=Security Agencies and Congress Brace for Fight Over Expiring Surveillance Law |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/article/warrantless-surveillance-section-702.html |access-date=2023-04-10 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The Bush administration initially defended the program as an extension of [[Powers of the president of the United States|executive authority]]; amid public, political, and legal pressure, the program was ended in January 2007 and the government announced it would seek warrants from the [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court|Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]] (FISC).<ref name="nytimes1">{{cite news |title=Gonzales_Letter |work=The New York Times |url=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060117gonzales_Letter.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=January 18, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070120183203/http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060117gonzales_Letter.pdf |archive-date=January 20, 2007}}</ref> {{wikisource|Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978}}

=== Section 702 ===
Following the controversy over [[Stellar Wind]], Congress later legalized a form of that program in [[FISA of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008|Section 702]].

==Provisions==
The subchapters of FISA provide for:

* Electronic surveillance ({{usctc|50|36|I}})
* Physical [[Search and seizure|searches]] ({{usctc|50|36|II}})
* [[Pen register]]s and trap & trace devices for foreign intelligence purposes ({{usctc|50|36|III}})
* Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence purposes ({{usctc|50|36|IV}})
* Reporting requirement ({{usctc|50|36|V}})

===Electronic surveillance===
Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two different scenarios.

====Without a court order====
The President may authorize, through the [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]], electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year, provided that it is only to acquire foreign intelligence information,<ref name="fisa1801" /> that it is solely directed at communications or property controlled exclusively by foreign powers,<ref name="foreignpower">{{usc|50|1801}}(a) Definition of Foreign power</ref> that there is no substantial likelihood that it will acquire the contents of any communication to which a [[United States person]] is a party, and that it be conducted only in accordance with defined minimization procedures.<ref name="warrantless">{{USC|50|1802(a)(1)}}, Conditions under which the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order</ref>

The code defines "foreign intelligence information" to mean information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, [[sabotage]] or [[international terrorism]].<ref name="fisa1801">{{usc|50|1801}}(e) Definition of Foreign intelligence information</ref>

"Foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction of a foreign nation not substantially composed of [[US person|U.S. persons]], and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government.<ref>§§1801(a)(1)–(3)</ref> The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations.<ref>§§1801(a)(4) and (5)</ref> The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism.<ref>''See'' §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2), and (3)).</ref>

A "U.S. person" includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the United States.

"Minimization procedures" limit the collection of information concerning United States persons by protecting their identities and requiring a court order to retain the communications for longer than 72 hours. The communications can be retained without court order if there is evidence of a crime. Identification of a US person, known as "unmasking", may also be authorized if an agency believes it is necessary in order to understand the intelligence or believes that the person was committing a crime.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Watkins|first1=Eli|title='Unmasking,' FISA and other terms to help you understand the wiretapping story|url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/nsa-terms-glossary/|access-date=April 4, 2017|work=CNN.com|agency=Cable News Network|issue=March 23, 2017|publisher=Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.}}</ref>

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]],<ref name="reportfiscunderseal">{{USC|50|1802(a)(3)}}, Requirement of the Attorney General's to file reports under seal on warrantless surveillance to the FISC</ref> and report on their compliance to the [[U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence|House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence]] and the [[U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence|Senate Select Committee on Intelligence]].<ref name="reportcongresscompliance">{{USC|50|1802(a)(2)}}, Requirement of the Attorney General's to report on compliance with warrantless surveillance requirements to Congress</ref>

Since {{usc|50|1802}}(a)(1)(A) of this Act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2),(3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation thereof; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.<ref name="excludeddefinitions">[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1802-#a_1_A 50 U.S.C. §1802 (a)(1)(A)] The limitation of warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined in 50 U.S.C § 1801 (a) (1),(2), and (3)</ref> Under FISA, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties<ref name="criminal">[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1809- 50 U.S.C. §1809] – Criminal sanctions</ref> and civil liabilities.<ref name="civil">[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1810- 50 U.S.C. §1810] – Civil liability</ref>

Under 50 U.S.C. § 1811, the President may also authorize warrantless surveillance at the beginning of a war. Specifically, he may authorize such surveillance "for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress".<ref name="war exception">[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1811- 50 U.S.C. § 1811] – Authorization during time of war</ref>

====With a court order====
{{See also|Masking and unmasking by intelligence agencies}}

Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FIS court.<ref name="warrant">{{usc|50|1805}}(a) Electronic surveillance with a court order</ref> This is called the traditional intelligence collection, because it is "the targeted monitoring of a suspected clandestine operative of a foreign power."<ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" /> Approval of a FISA application requires the court find [[probable cause]] that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power"<ref name="20090612BelferRosenbach" /> inside the United States<ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy">{{cite news |last1=McCarthy |first1=Andrew C. |title=Unmasking? The Real Story Is When Flynn Was Not Masked in the First Place |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/michael-flynn-unmasking-real-story-is-when-he-was-not-masked-in-the-first-place/ |access-date=May 18, 2020 |publisher=National Review |date=May 16, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200518200652/https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/michael-flynn-unmasking-real-story-is-when-he-was-not-masked-in-the-first-place/ |archive-date=May 18, 2020}}</ref> and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent.<ref name="20090612BelferRosenbach">{{cite web |author1=Eric Rosenbach |author2=Aki J. Peritz |title=Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community |url=https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf |publisher=Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University |access-date=18 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160716041444/http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf |archive-date=July 16, 2016|date=June 12, 2009}}</ref> In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to U.S. persons.<ref name="minimization">{{usc|50|1801}}(h) Minimization procedures definition</ref><ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" /> If the foreign power's suspected agent communicates with Americans, the communications of U.S. citizens are incidentally intercepted even though they are not the targets of the surveillance.<ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" />

Depending on the type of surveillance, approved orders or extensions of orders may be active for 90 days, 120 days, or a year.<ref name="duration">{{usc|50|1805}}(d) Duration of order; extensions; review of circumstances under which information was acquired, retained or disseminated</ref> FISA warrants require renewal depending on the type of surveillance and type of warrant either every 90 days (if targeting a U.S. person) or 120 days (if targeting a non-U.S. person).<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.justsecurity.org/45255/fisa-warrants-paul-manafort-muellers-investigation/ |title=What the FISA Warrants Against Paul Manafort Tell Us About Mueller's Investigation|date=2017-09-23|work=Just Security|access-date=2018-05-01|language=en-US}}</ref>

===FISA court===
{{Main|United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court|United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review}}

The Act created the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]] (FISC) and enabled it to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by [[Federal law enforcement in the United States|federal law enforcement]] and [[United States Intelligence Community|intelligence agencies]] (primarily the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] and the [[National Security Agency]]) against suspected foreign [[secret agent|intelligence agents]] inside the U.S. The court is located within the [[E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] The court is staffed by eleven judges appointed by the [[Chief Justice of the United States]] to serve seven-year terms.

Proceedings before the FISA court are ''[[ex parte]]'' and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]]. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected.  The [[USA Freedom Act]] (Section 402), however, requires the government to declassify and publicly release "to the greatest extent practicable" each order, decision and opinion of the court if it contains a "significant construction or interpretation of law."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2048/text|title=Text - H.R.2048 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): USA FREEDOM Act of 2015|last=F.|first=Sensenbrenner|date=2015-06-02|website=www.congress.gov|language=en|access-date=2018-05-05}}</ref>

FISC meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for [[search warrants]]. Only the number of warrants applied for, issued and denied, is reported. In 1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/1980rept.html|title=Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 1980 Annual Report}}</ref> This number has steadily grown to 2,224 warrants in 2006.<ref>https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2006rept.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref> In the period 1979–2006, a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/fisa/stats/default.html|title=EPIC - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court Orders 1979-2017|publisher=Electronic Privacy Information Center|access-date=December 11, 2019|archive-date=December 11, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191211162625/https://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/fisa/stats/default.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Denials of FISA applications by the FISC may be appealed to the [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review|Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review]]. The Court of Review is a three-judge panel. Since its creation, the court has come into session twice: in 2002 and 2008.

===Physical searches===
In addition to electronic surveillance, FISA permits the "physical search" of the "premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by" a foreign power. The requirements and procedures are nearly identical to those for electronic surveillance.

===Telephone metadata===
In the 2020 case, ''[[United States v. Moalin]]'', the [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] ruled that the federal government violated FISA, and possibly the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, when it collected the telephony metadata of millions of Americans.<ref>https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/02/13-50572.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</ref>

===Remedies for violations===
Both the subchapters covering physical searches and electronic surveillance provide for criminal and civil liability for violations of FISA.

Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by ''[[intent (law)|intentionally]]'' engaging in electronic surveillance under the [[color of law]] or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance. The penalties for either act are fines up to US$10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.<ref name="criminal" />

In addition, the statute creates a [[cause of action]] for private individuals whose communications were unlawfully monitored. The statute permits actual [[damages]] of not less than $10,000 or $1,000 per day of violation if aggrieved person is a United States person, and $1,000 or $100 per day for all other aggrieved persons, per a 2008 amendment. In addition, that statute authorizes [[punitive damages]] and an award of [[attorney's fees]].<ref name="civil" /> Similar liability is found under the subchapter pertaining to physical searches. In both cases, the statute creates an [[affirmative defense]] for law enforcement personnel acting within their official duties and pursuant to a valid court order. Presumably, such a defense is not available to those operating exclusively under presidential authorization.

==Constitutionality==
===Before FISA===
In 1967, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] held that the requirements of the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]] applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. ''[[Katz v. United States]]'', 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of [[national security]]. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in ''[[United States v. U.S. District Court|United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon]]'', 407 U.S. 297 (1972), where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Justice [[Lewis Franklin Powell Jr.|Powell]] wrote that the decision did not address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents".

Immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both ''United States v. Brown'', 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and ''United States v. Butenko'', 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In ''Brown'', a U.S. citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In ''Butenko'', the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.

A plurality opinion in ''Zweibon v. Mitchell'', 516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975), held that a warrant was required for the domestic surveillance of a domestic organization. In this case, the court found that the domestic organization was not a "foreign power or their agent", and "absent exigent circumstances, all warrantless electronic surveillance is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional."

===Post-FISA===
There have been very few cases involving the [[constitutional]]ity of FISA. Two lower court decisions found FISA constitutional. In ''United States v. Duggan'', 743 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1984), the [[defendant]]s were members of the [[Irish Republican Army]]. They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of [[explosive]]s and [[firearm]]s. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Court finds FISA constitutional - United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984)|url=https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm|access-date=2021-04-01|website=biotech.law.lsu.edu}}</ref>

In the ''United States v. Nicholson'', 955 F. Supp. 588 (E.D. Va. 1997), the defendant moved to suppress all [[evidence (law)|evidence]] gathered under a FISA order. The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There, the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated [[Due process clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]], [[Equal protection]], [[Separation of powers]], nor the [[Right to counsel]] provided by the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]].

However, in a third case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court of Appeals, opined differently. In ''In re Sealed Case'', 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2002), the special court stated "[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . ... We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

==Criticism==

K. A. Taipale of the World Policy Institute, James Jay Carafano of [[The Heritage Foundation]],<ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060124-104527-1255r.htm Commentary], Wash. Times, January 24, 2006</ref> and Philip Bobbitt of Columbia Law School,<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/opinion/30bobbitt.html?ex=1139374800&en=c455580a2c60431a&ei=5070 Why We Listen], ''The New York Times'', January 30, 2006</ref> among others,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3469783|title=Search Results for "ci_3469783" – The Denver Post|date=June 8, 2023 }}</ref> have argued that FISA may need to be amended to include, among other things, procedures for programmatic approvals, as it may no longer be adequate to address certain foreign intelligence needs and technology developments, including: the transition from [[circuit-switching|circuit-based]] communications to [[packet switching|packet-based]] communications; the [[globalization]] of [[telecommunication]] infrastructure; and the development of automated monitoring techniques, including [[data mining]] and [[traffic analysis]].<ref>[http://ssrn.com/abstract=889120 ''Whispering Wires and Warrantless Wiretaps''], N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Sec., No. VII Supl. (Spring 2006)</ref>

John R. Schmidt, associate attorney general (1994–1997) in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton, expressed a need for programmatic approval of technology-enabled surveillance programs.<ref>"[https://www.chicagotribune.com/2006/02/12/a-historical-solution-to-the-bush-spying-issue/ A historical solution to the Bush spying issue],"  ''Chicago Tribune'' (February 12, 2006) </ref> He recalled early arguments made by then-Attorney General [[Edward Levi]] to the [[Church Committee]] that foreign intelligence surveillance legislation should include provisions for programmatically authorizing surveillance programs because of the particular needs of foreign intelligence where "virtually continuous surveillance, which by its nature does not have specifically predetermined targets" may be required. In these situations, "the efficiency of a warrant requirement would be minimal."

In a 2006 opinion, Judge [[Richard Posner]] wrote that FISA "retains value as a framework for monitoring the communications of known terrorists, but it is hopeless as a framework for detecting terrorists. [FISA] requires that surveillance be conducted pursuant to warrants based on probable cause to believe that the target of surveillance is a terrorist, when the desperate need is to find out who is a terrorist."<ref>{{cite web|author=Richard A. Posner|author-link=Richard Posner|date=15 February 2006|title=A New Surveillance Act|url=https://www.wsj.com/article/SB113996743590074183-search.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070422184921/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113996743590074183-search.html|archive-date=2007-04-22|publisher=[[The Wall Street Journal|wsj.com]]|access-date=10 July 2013}}</ref>

The ACLU considers the FISA Act to be unconstitutional for several reasons including: the law was designed to mainly address terrorism threats, but in fact intercepts communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind; and that "the government can create huge databases that contain information about U.S. persons obtained without warrants and then search these databases at a later point."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/why-fisa-amendments-act-unconstitutional|title = Why the FISA Amendments Act is Unconstitutional|website=ACLU|date=February 5, 2008}}</ref>

==Amendments==
===USA PATRIOT Act===
The Act was amended in 2001 by the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government.

===Lone wolf amendment===
In 2004, FISA was amended to include a "lone wolf" provision. {{USC|50|1801(b)(1)(C)}}. A "lone wolf" is a non-U.S. person who engages in or prepares for international terrorism. The provision amended the definition of "foreign power" to permit the FISA courts to issue surveillance and physical search orders without having to find a connection between the "lone wolf" and a foreign government or terrorist group. However, "if the court authorizes such a surveillance or physical search using this new definition of 'agent of a foreign power', the FISC judge has to find, in pertinent part, that, based upon the information provided by the applicant for the order, the target had engaged in or was engaging in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor".<ref name="lonewolf">{{Cite web|url=https://fas.org/irp/crs/RS22011.pdf|title="Lone Wolf" Amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act|website=fas.org|date=December 29, 2004}}</ref>

===Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006===
On March 16, 2006, Senators [[Mike DeWine]] (R-OH), [[Lindsey Graham]] (R-SC), [[Chuck Hagel]] (R-NE), and [[Olympia Snowe]] (R-ME) introduced the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455),<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/dewine031606.html|title=Dewine, Graham, Hagel and Snowe Introduce the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cdt.org/security/20060324dewinebill.pdf|title=Dewine Bill as introduced}}</ref> under which the President would be given certain additional limited statutory authority to conduct electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States subject to enhanced Congressional oversight. Also on March 16, 2006, Senator [[Arlen Specter]] (R-PA) introduced the [[National Security Surveillance Act of 2006]] ({{USBill|110|S.|2453}}),<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://information-retrieval.info/docs/SpecterFloorStmt.pdf|title=Specter Floor Statement}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://information-retrieval.info/docs/NSAfinal.pdf|title=Specter Bill as introduced}}</ref> which would amend FISA to grant retroactive amnesty<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060801992.html Specter Offers Compromise on NSA Surveillance], ''The Washington Post'', June 9, 2006</ref> for warrantless surveillance conducted under presidential authority and provide FISA court (FISC) jurisdiction to review, authorize, and oversight "electronic surveillance programs". On May 24, 2006, Senator Specter and Senator [[Dianne Feinstein]] (D-CA) introduced the [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act]] of 2006 ({{USBill|110|S.|3001}}) asserting FISA as the exclusive means to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance.

All three competing bills were the subject of Judiciary Committee hearings throughout the summer.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/index.html#fisa4|title=Intelligence: Congress: 2006 Hearings}}</ref> On September 13, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve all three mutually exclusive bills, thus, leaving it to the full Senate to resolve.<ref>[https://fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/09/conflicting_bills_on_warrantle.html Conflicting Bills on Warrantless Surveillance Advance in Senate] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130414170236/http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/09/conflicting_bills_on_warrantle.html |date=April 14, 2013 }}, Secrecy News, September 14, 2006</ref>

On July 18, 2006, U.S. Representative [[Heather Wilson]] (R-NM) introduced the [[Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act]] ({{USBill|110|H.R.|5825}}). Wilson's bill would give the President the authority to authorize electronic surveillance of international phone calls and e-mail linked specifically to identified terrorist groups immediately following or in anticipation of an armed or terrorist attack on the United States. Surveillance beyond the initial authorized period would require a FISA warrant or a presidential certification to Congress. On September 28, 2006, the House of Representatives passed Wilson's bill and it was referred to the Senate.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wilson.house.gov/NewsAction.asp?FormMode=Releases&ID=1309 |title=House Passes Wilson FISA Bill |access-date=June 1, 2016}}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}, Press Release, September 29, 2006.</ref>

===Protect America Act of 2007===
{{Main|Protect America Act}}

On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the FISA in order to ease restrictions on surveillance of terrorist suspects where one party (or both parties) to the communication are located overseas. He asked that Congress pass the legislation before its August 2007 recess. On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed a Republican-sponsored version of FISA ([https://web.archive.org/web/20071222101804/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1927/show S. 1927]) in a vote of 60 to 28. The House followed by passing the bill, 227–183. The [[Protect America Act of 2007]] ({{USPL|110|55}}, {{USBill|110|S.|1927}}) was then signed into law by [[George W. Bush]] on August 5, 2007.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34143.pdf|title=P.L. 110-55, the Protect America Act of 2007:Modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act|last=Bazan|first=Elizabeth|publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]]|date=February 14, 2008|access-date=April 29, 2008}}</ref>

Under the Protect America Act of 2007, communications that begin or end in a foreign country may be wiretapped by the U.S. government without supervision by the FISA Court. The Act removes from the definition of "electronic surveillance" in FISA any surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. As such, surveillance of these communications no longer requires a government application to, and order issuing from, the FISA Court.

The Act provides procedures for the government to "certify" the legality of an acquisition program, for the government to issue directives to providers to provide data or assistance under a particular program, and for the government and recipient of a directive to seek from the FISA Court, respectively, an order to compel provider compliance or relief from an unlawful directive. Providers receive costs and full immunity from civil suits for compliance with any directives issued pursuant to the Act.

A summary of key provisions follows. The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States" if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met:

* There are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
* The acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications);
* The acquisition involves obtaining the communications data from or with the assistance of a communications service provider who has access to communications;
* A significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and
* Minimization procedures outlined in the FISA will be used.

This determination by the Attorney General and DNI must be certified in writing, under oath, and supported by appropriate affidavit(s). If immediate action by the government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification, the Attorney General or DNI can direct the acquisition orally, with a certification to follow within 72 hours. The certification is then filed with the FISA Court.

Once the certification is filed with the FISA Court, the Attorney General or DNI can direct a provider to undertake or assist in the undertaking of the acquisition.

If a provider fails to comply with a directive issued by the Attorney General or DNI, the Attorney General may seek an order from the FISA Court compelling compliance with the directive. Failure to obey an order of the FISA Court may be punished as a contempt of court.

Likewise, a person receiving a directive may challenge the legality of that directive by filing a petition with the FISA Court. An initial review must be conducted within 48 hours of the filing to determine whether the petition is frivolous, and a final determination concerning any non-frivolous petitions must be made – in writing – within 72 hours of receipt of the petition.

Determinations of the FISA Court may be appealed to the Foreign Intelligence Court of Appeals, and a petition for a [[writ of certiorari]] of a decision from the FICA can be made to the U.S. Supreme Court.

All petitions must be filed under seal.

The Act allows providers to be compensated, at the prevailing rate, for providing assistance as directed by the Attorney General or DNI.

The Act provides explicit immunity from civil suit in any federal or state court for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under the Act.

Within 120 days, the Attorney General must submit to the FISA Court for its approval the procedures by which the government will determine that acquisitions authorized by the Act conform with the Act and do not involve purely domestic communications. The FISA Court then will determine whether the procedures comply with the Act. The FISA Court thereafter will enter an order either approving the procedures or directing the government to submit new procedures within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under the government procedures. The government may appeal a ruling of the FISA Court to the FICA and ultimately the Supreme Court.

On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall inform the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate of incidents of noncompliance with a directive issued by the Attorney General or the DNI, incidents of noncompliance with FISA Court-approved procedures by the Intelligence Community, and the number of certifications and directives issued during the reporting period.

The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.<ref name="DigestibleLaw.com">{{cite web |last=Sussmann |first=Michael |title=FISA Amended to Allow Acquisition of Cross-Border Communications Without a Court Order |publisher=DigestibleLaw.com |date=August 6, 2007 |url=http://www.digestiblelaw.com/advertising/blogQ.aspx?entry=3915&id=1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929032559/http://www.digestiblelaw.com/advertising/blogQ.aspx?entry=3915&id=1 |archive-date=September 29, 2007 |access-date=August 11, 2007}}</ref> The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

====Subsequent developments====
{{See also|FISA Amendments Act of 2008#Background}}

Legal experts experienced in national security issues are divided on how broadly the new law could be interpreted or applied. Some believe that due to subtle changes in the definitions of terms such as "electronic surveillance", it could empower the government to conduct warrantless physical searches and even seizures of communications and computer devices and their data which belong to U.S. citizens while they are in the United States, if the government contended that those searches and potential seizures were related to its surveillance of parties outside the United States. Intelligence officials, while declining to comment directly on such possibilities, respond that such interpretations are overly broad readings of the act, and unlikely to actually occur.

In a September 10, 2007 address at a symposium on modernizing FISA held at [[Georgetown University Law Center]]'s National Security Center, [[Ken Wainstein|Kenneth L. Wainstein]], [[Assistant Attorney General of the United States|Assistant Attorney General for National Security]], argued against the current six-month [[sunset provision]] in the Protect America Act of 2007, saying that the broadened surveillance powers the act provides for should be made permanent. Wainstein proposed that internal audits by the Office of the [[Director of National Intelligence]] and the [[United States Department of Justice National Security Division|National Security Division of the Justice Department]], with reporting to select groups of Congressmen, would ensure that the expanded capability would not be abused.<ref>{{cite magazine |author=Ryan Singel |title=Government Promises to Self-Audit Spying to Make Powers Permanent |magazine=Wired|date=September 11, 2007 |url=http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/09/government-prom.html |access-date=September 11, 2007}}</ref>

Also on September 10, DNI [[John Michael McConnell|Mike McConnell]] testified before the [[Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs]]. He mistakenly claimed that the Protect America Act had helped foil a major terror plot in Germany.<ref>{{cite news |author1=Michael Isikoff |author2=Mark Hosenball |title=Spy Master Admits Error |work=Newsweek|date=September 12, 2007 |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20749773/site/newsweek/page/0/ |access-date=September 13, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071105014108/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20749773/site/newsweek/page/0/ <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date=November 5, 2007}}</ref>

Speaking at [[National Security Agency]] headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland on September 19, 2007, President [[George W. Bush]] urged Congress to make the provisions of the Protect America Act permanent. Bush also called for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who had cooperated with government surveillance efforts, saying, "It's particularly important for Congress to provide meaningful liability protection to those companies now facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our nation, following the 9/11 attacks".<ref>{{cite web |author=Anne Broache |title=President Bush rallies for immortal spy law changes, telco protection |publisher=CNET News.com |date=September 12, 2007 |url=http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9781991-7.html |access-date=September 20, 2007}}</ref>

On October 4, 2007, the bipartisan Liberty and Security Committee of the [[Constitution Project]], co-chaired by [[David Keene]] and [[David D. Cole]], issued its "Statement on the Protect America Act".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/Statement%20on%20PAA1.pdf|title=May 21, 2007<!-- Bot generated title -->|date=April 5, 2023 }}</ref> The Statement urged Congress not to reauthorize the PAA, saying the language of the bill "runs contrary to the tripartite balance of power the Framers envisioned for our constitutional democracy, and poses a serious threat to the very notion of government of the people, by the people and for the people". Some in the legal community have questioned the constitutionality of any legislation that would retroactively immunize telecommunications firms alleged to have cooperated with the government from civil liability for having potentially violated their customers' privacy rights.<ref>{{cite web |author=Anthony J. Seebok |title=Is It Constitutional for the Senate to Retroactively Immunize From Civil Liability the Telecoms That Provided the Government with Information About Customers' Communications? |publisher=FindLaw Writ Legal News and Commentary |date=January 29, 2008 |url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/sebok/20080129.html |access-date=February 7, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080302033755/http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fsebok%2F20080129.html |archive-date=March 2, 2008 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

In an article appearing in the January/February 2008 issue of the [[Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers]] journal of Security and Privacy, noted technology experts from academia and the computing industry found significant flaws in the technical implementation of the Protect America Act which they said created serious security risks, including the danger that such a surveillance system could be exploited by unauthorized users, criminally misused by trusted insiders, or abused by the government.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Steven M. Bellovin |author2=Matt Blaze |author3=Whitfield Diffie |author4=Susan Landau |author5=Peter G. Neumann |author6=Jennifer Rexford |title=Risking Communications Security: Potential Hazards of the Protect America Act |journal= IEEE Security & Privacy|volume=6 |pages=24–33 |date=February 5, 2008 |url= http://www.crypto.com/papers/paa-ieee.pdf |doi=10.1109/MSP.2008.17 |s2cid=874506 |access-date=February 5, 2008 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080227135042/http://www.crypto.com/papers/paa-ieee.pdf |archive-date=February 27, 2008 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

On October 7, 2007, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' reported that House Democrats planned to introduce alternative legislation which would provide for one-year "umbrella" warrants, and would require the [[United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General|Justice Department Inspector General]] to audit the use of those warrants and issue quarterly reports to a special FISA court and to Congress. The proposed bill would not include immunity for telecommunications firms facing lawsuits in connection with the administration's [[NSA warrantless surveillance]] program. House Democrats said that as long as the administration withholds requested documents explaining the basis for the program that they cannot consider immunity for firms alleged to have facilitated it.<ref>{{cite news |author=Ellen Nakashima |title=Democrats to Offer New Surveillance Rules |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=October 7, 2007 |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601265_pf.html |access-date=October 7, 2007}}</ref> On October 10, 2007, comments on the White House South Lawn, President Bush said he would not sign any bill that did not provide retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations.<ref>{{cite news |author=David Stout |title=Bush Presses Congress on New Eavesdropping Law |work=The New York Times |date=October 10, 2007 |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10cnd-nsa.html?pagewanted=print |access-date=October 10, 2007|author-link=David Stout }}</ref>

On October 18, 2007, the House Democratic leadership put off a vote on the proposed legislation by the full chamber to avoid consideration of a Republican measure that made specific references to [[Osama bin Laden]]. At the same time, the [[Senate Intelligence Committee]] reportedly reached a compromise with the White House on a different proposal that would give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program approved by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.<ref>{{cite news |author=Eric Lichtblau |title=Senate Deal on Immunity for Phone Companies |work=The New York Times |date=October 18, 2007 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/washington/18nsa.html?pagewanted=print |access-date=October 18, 2007}}</ref>

On November 15, 2007, the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] voted 10–9 along party lines to send an alternative measure to the full Senate other than the one the intelligence committee had crafted with the White House.<ref>{{cite news |author=Pamela Hess |title=Congress Takes Up Terrorist Surveillance |agency=Associated Press |date=November 15, 2007 |url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8SUD33G0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071116203436/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8SUD33G0 |archive-date=November 16, 2007 |access-date=November 15, 2007}}</ref>{{Update after|2013|9|4}}

On the same day, the House of Representatives voted 227–189 to approve a Democratic bill that would expand court oversight of government surveillance inside the United States while denying immunity to telecom companies.<ref>{{cite news |author=Pamela Hess |title=House OKs Surveillance Oversight Bill |agency=Associated Press |date=November 15, 2007 |url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8SUFI800 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071118005441/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8SUFI800 |archive-date=November 18, 2007 |access-date=November 15, 2007}}</ref>

{{wikisource|Senator Dodd Speaks in Opposition to FISA Bill on Floor of U.S. Senate}}

In February 2008, the Senate passed the version of the [[FISA Amendments Act of 2008|new FISA]] that would allow telecom companies immunity. On March 13, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives held a secret session to discuss related information. On March 14, the House voted 213–197 to approve a bill that would ''not'' grant telecom immunity – far short of the 2/3 majority required to override a Presidential veto.<ref>{{cite news |author=Jonathan Weisman |title=House Passes a Surveillance Bill Not to Bush's Liking |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=March 15, 2008 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031400803.html?hpid=topnews |access-date=March 28, 2008}}</ref> The Senate and House bills are compared and contrasted in a June 12, 2008 report from the [[Congressional Research Service]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34533.pdf|title=The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Comparison of House-Passed H.R. 3773, S. 2248 as Reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and S. 2248 as Reported Out of the Senate Judiciary Committee|last=Bazan|first=Elizabeth|publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]]|date=February 8, 2008|access-date=April 29, 2008}}</ref>

On March 13, 2008, the House of Representatives held a secret, closed door meeting to debate changes to the FISA bill.<ref>Rep. [[Dennis Kucinich]] of Ohio debates secret house meeting {{YouTube|Z3Ixpapbd7M|Somethings fishy!}}. (2008-11-11). Retrieved on 2013-08-15.</ref>

===FISA Amendments Act of 2008===
{{Main|Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008}}

The [[FISA Amendments Act of 2008]] passed by the [[United States Congress]] on July 9, 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote Summary, Vote 00168, 100th Congress, 2nd Session|date=July 9, 2008}}</ref> The amendments added a new Title VII to the Act, which was slated to expire at the end of 2012 pending reauthorization;<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/laws/fisa-amendments-act-2008|title=Legal Resources {{!}} Intelligence Committee|website=www.intelligence.senate.gov|language=en|access-date=2018-05-05}}</ref> Congress subsequently extended the provision to December 31, 2017.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/us/politics/senate-votes-to-extend-electronic-surveillance-authority-under-fisa.html|title=Senate Votes to Extend Electronic Surveillance Authority|last=Pear|first=Robert|date=2012-12-28|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The 2008 amendments gave telecoms immunity, increased the time allotted for warrantless surveillance, and adds provisions for emergency eavesdropping. On June 20, 2008, the House of Representatives passed the amendment with a vote of 293 to 129.<ref name="Kane">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/20/ST2008062001087.html |title=House Passes Spy Bill; Senate Expected to Follow|first=Paul|last=Kane|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=2008-06-21}}</ref><ref name="House">{{Cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml|title=Final Vote Results For Roll Call 437, June 20, 2008}}</ref> It passed in the Senate 69 to 28 on July 9, 2008<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168|title=Vote Summary On A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.|publisher=senate.gov|date=2008-07-09}}</ref> after a failed attempt to strike Title II from the bill by Senator Dodd.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00164 |title=Vote Summary On Dodd Amendment (No. 5064) to Strike Title&nbsp;II|publisher=senate.gov|date=2008-07-09}}</ref> On July 10, 2008, President Bush signed it into law.

===2015 USA Freedom Act===
First proposed in response to the disclosures of NSA contractor [[Edward Snowden]], which revealed mass surveillance undertaken by the agency, the [[USA Freedom Act]] was intended by its sponsors to provide a "balanced approach" to intelligence gathering.<ref>Nakashima, Ellen (28 April 2015). "[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/with-deadline-near-lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-end-nsa-program/2015/04/28/8fd1cf6e-edb4-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html?tid=hybrid_linearcol_1_na With deadline near, lawmakers introduce bill to end NSA program]". ''The Washington Post''.</ref> The law restored and modified several provisions of the [[Patriot Act]], overhauled the NSA, and required the U.S. government to undergo standard court procedures in order to gather data regarding suspicious activities.<ref name="iopppkk">{{Cite web |date=June 2, 2015 |title=Text - H.R.2048 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2048/text |website=www.congress.gov}}</ref>

===FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017===
After months of congressional hearings and some public controversy,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/open-letter-our-community-congresss-vote-extend-nsa-spying-eff-executive-director|title=An Open Letter to Our Community On Congress's Vote to Extend NSA Spying From EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohn|last=Cohn|first=Cindy|date=2018-01-18|work=Electronic Frontier Foundation|access-date=2018-01-31|language=en}}</ref> following a short-term extension of three weeks,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/key-nsa-surveillance-programs-reauthorization-hits-roadblock-in-congress/2017/12/20/0640980e-e5b7-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html|title=Key NSA surveillance program's reauthorization hits roadblock in Congress|last=Demirjian|first=Karoun|date=2017-12-20|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref> Congress passed a six-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008,<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/139/text|title=Text - S.139 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): An Act to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to improve foreign intelligence collection and the safeguards, accountability, and oversight of acquisitions of foreign intelligence, to extend title VII of such Act, and for other purposes.|last=Hatch|first=Orrin|date=2018-01-19|access-date=2018-05-05}}</ref> which was signed into law in January 2018.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-fisa-amendments-reauthorization-act-2017/|title=Statement by the President on FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017|access-date=2018-01-31|via=[[NARA|National Archives]]|work=[[whitehouse.gov]]|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|first1=Ashley|last1=Parker|first2=Philip|last2=Rucker|first3=Josh|last3=Dawsey|access-date=2018-02-02|title=Trump's 'ping-pong' on surveillance law sets off a 101-minute scramble|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-ping-pong-on-surveillance-law-sets-off-a-101-minute-scramble/2018/01/11/748026ec-f6ef-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html|newspaper=Washington Post|date=2018-01-11|issn=0190-8286|via=www.washingtonpost.com}}</ref>

Beginning in late 2016, the government initiate efforts to persuade Congress to extend the surveillance authority in Title VII of the Act, which, pursuant to the 2008 and 2012 amendments, was slated to expire on December 31, 2017.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/us/politics/congress-surveillance-nsa-privacy.html|title=Fight Brews Over Push to Shield Americans in Warrantless Surveillance|last=Savage|first=Charlie|date=2017-05-06|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>  [[Tom Cotton]], a Republican Senator from Arkansas, introduced a bill to permanently extend the provisions of Title VII with no changes, but the bill did not advance, as many in Congress were seeking reforms to address privacy concerns.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/congress-braces-for-tense-debate-on-surveillance-law|title=Congress Braces for Tense Debate on Surveillance Law|last1=Ratnam|first1=Gopal|date=2017-09-11|work=Roll Call|access-date=2018-05-05|last2=Ratnam|first2=Gopal|language=en}}</ref>  The [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary]] introduced an extension bill with significant proposed reforms,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/us/politics/fisa-warrantless-surveillance-law-reauthorization-debate.html|title=Lawmakers Want Limits on Wiretaps Despite Trump Administration Objections|last=Savage|first=Charlie|date=2017-09-12|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bipartisan-group-of-lawmakers-seek-to-impose-new-limit-on-nsa-spy-power/2017/10/04/7296989a-a873-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html|title=Bipartisan group of lawmakers seeks to impose new curb on U.S. government spy power|last=Nakashima|first=Ellen|date=2017-10-04|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref> as did the [[United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence|U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence]], but ultimately a version of the extension with less significant reforms was advanced by [[United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence|U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence]], and in effect that version, through a complex series of amendments<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/139/actions?q=%7B%22search%22:%5B%22FISA+amendments%22%5D%7D&r=5|title=Actions - S.139 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): An Act to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to improve foreign intelligence collection and the safeguards, accountability, and oversight of acquisitions of foreign intelligence, to extend title VII of such Act, and for other purposes. |last=Orrin |first=Hatch |date=2018-01-19 |publisher=www.congress.gov|language=en|access-date=2018-05-05}}</ref> was ultimately enacted into law.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/us/politics/fisa-surveillance-congress-trump.html|title=House Extends Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Safeguards|last1=Savage|first1=Charlie|date=2018|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-05-05|last2=Sullivan|first2=Eileen|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|last3=Fandos|first3=Nicholas}}</ref> The Senate agreed to a House amendment on January 18, 2018, and the [[Donald Trump|President]] signed the legislation, S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Public Law 115–118), into law on January 19, 2018.<ref name="auto"/><ref name=BumpAugust/>

FISA Section 702 allows the National Security Agency to conduct searches of foreigners' communications without any warrant. The process incidentally collects information from Americans.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Volz |first1=Dustin |title=Trump signs bill renewing NSA's internet surveillance program |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-surveillance/trump-signs-bill-renewing-nsas-internet-surveillance-program-idUSKBN1F82MK |website=[[Reuters]] |access-date=June 27, 2019 |date=January 20, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Matishak |first1=Martin |title=Trump signs surveillance extension into law |url=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/trump-surveillance-extension-351136 |website=[[Politico]] |access-date=June 27, 2019 |date=January 17, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Haynes |first1=Danielle |title=Trump signs FISA law amid speculation over intelligence memo |url=https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/01/19/Trump-signs-FISA-law-amid-speculation-over-intelligence-memo/4291516400093/ |website=[[UPI]] |access-date=June 27, 2019}}</ref><ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" /> Section 702 of FISA more specifically "brings under [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court|FISC]] jurisdiction various intelligence-collection programs that target categories of non-Americans outside the United States. These foreigners also communicate with Americans, so the latter are incidentally intercepted."<ref name="20200516NatReviewMcCarthy" /> The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 extends Section 702 for six years, to December 31, 2023, and most notably included new restrictions on querying surveillance databases, prohibited the resumption of certain types of collection about a target that were not directly addressed to or from that target, unless Congress approved such collection within 30 days of having been notified of the resumption, and provided for additional reporting by the Executive Branch of surveillance activities.<ref>{{cite web |title=Text - S.139 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/139/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22FISA+amendments%22%5D%7D&r=5 |website=Congress.gov |publisher=Library of Congress |access-date=27 September 2019 |date=1 December 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/summary-fisa-amendments-reauthorization-act-2017|title=FISA: 702 Collection - Summary: The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017|date=2018-01-18|work=Lawfare|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230923073104/https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/summary-fisa-amendments-reauthorization-act-2017|archive-date=2023-09-23|url-status=live|author=Emma Kohse}}</ref> Many privacy and civil liberties advocates argued that the reforms enacted by the extension bill were inadequate,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.aclu.org/letter/coalition-letter-opposing-fisa-amendments-reauthorization-act-2017|title=Coalition Letter Opposing the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017|work=American Civil Liberties Union|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en}}</ref> but their arguments were successfully opposed by the government.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-governments-ability-to-fight-terrorism-is-in-peril/2017/12/14/e4da9dd6-e0e8-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html|title=Opinion {{!}} The government's ability to fight terrorism is in peril|last=Brand|first=Rachel|date=2017-12-14|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-surveillance-law-needs-reauthorizing--and-tightening-too/2017/10/08/796a74a8-aa11-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html|title=Opinion {{!}} This surveillance law needs reauthorizing — and tightening, too |author=Editorial Board|date=2017-10-08|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2018-05-05|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref>

The January 2018 law also made unauthorized removal and retention of [[Classified information in the United States|classified information of the United States government]] a [[felony crime]] punishable by five years imprisonment and/or a fine.<ref name=BumpAugust>{{cite news |last1=Bump |first1=Phillip |title=Citizen Trump may have broken a law that President Trump made a felony |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search-surveillance-law/ |access-date=August 12, 2022 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=August 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20220811115304/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search-surveillance-law/ |archive-date=August 11, 2022}}</ref>

===2023 short-term reauthorization===
Pursuant to the most recent reauthorization in 2017, Section 702 of FISA was set to expire by the end of 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-01-12 |title=NSA director pushes Congress to renew surveillance powers |url=https://apnews.com/article/politics-united-states-government-us-republican-party-surveillance-donald-trump-aa98d51e59d02a1361833d1a4f431e23 |access-date=2023-04-10 |website=AP NEWS |language=en}}</ref> At the beginning of 2023, several [[Presidency of Joe Biden|Biden administration]] officials began urging Congress to renew the provision, including National Security Advisor [[Jake Sullivan]], Attorney General [[Merrick Garland]], Director of National Intelligence, [[Avril Haines]], and NSA Director [[Paul M. Nakasone]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-02-28 |title=US officials make case for renewing FISA surveillance powers |url=https://apnews.com/article/fisa-surveillance-intelligence-espionage-terrorism-congress-80f88dde705d578f7535ae167d90a90d |access-date=2023-04-10 |website=AP NEWS |language=en}}</ref> Federal authorities and other advocates have argued that Section 702 is critical to national security, whereas critics have reaffirmed ongoing concerns about privacy and civil liberties.<ref name="Savage"/><ref>{{Cite web |title=Today Is One Of The Biggest Surveillance Votes In The US. Will The FBI Finally Stop Spying On Americans? |url=https://tuta.com/blog/702-open-letter-against-surveillance |access-date=2023-12-29 |website=Tuta |date=December 12, 2023}}</ref> Several lawmakers, particularly among House Republicans, have called for any reauthorization to be contingent on several reforms,<ref>{{Cite web |title=House GOP group prepping for surveillance renewal fight |url=https://therecord.media/house-gop-intel-group-prepping-for-surveillance-renewal-fight |access-date=2023-04-10 |website=The Record |first=Martin |last=Matishak |date=October 4, 2022}}</ref> including limiting the scope of who can be investigated, requiring a warrant for surveillance in all instances, and restricting the amount of time collected data can be stored.<ref name="Sabin"/> According to an expected clarification report on US espionage released on April 21, 2023, the number of times the FBI looked up information about Americans in a repository of information collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 2022, decreased by more than 95% in 2022. The cuts follow a series of reforms the FBI made in the summer of 2021 to limit database searches for information about Americans who correspond with foreigners under surveillance.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Sakellariadis |first1=John |title=Government report shows steep decline in FBI's 'backdoor searches' on Americans |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/28/report-fbi-search-americans-00094456 |publisher=Politico |date=28 April 2023}}</ref> On December 14, 2023, Congress passed the [[National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024|National Defense Authorization Act]], which included a short-term extension of Section 702 until April 19, 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Beitsch |first=Rebecca |title= Congress approves short-term extension of warrantless surveillance powers  |url=https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/4360341-fisa-congress-approves-short-term-extension-warrantless-surveillance-powers/ |work=The Hill |date=14 December 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Sabin |first=Sam |title=Lawmakers push surveillance debate to 2024 |url=https://www.axios.com/2023/12/16/fisa-surveillance-section-702-2024 |publisher=Axios |date=16 December 2023}}</ref>

=== Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act of 2024 ===
On April 10, 2024, [[Donald Trump]] urged Congress to "kill FISA" based on claims of FBI surveillance during his [[Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign|2016 presidential campaign]], leading libertarian Republicans to join progressive Democrats in opposing Section 702's reauthorization on privacy-related grounds. To secure its passage, [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|House Speaker]] [[Mike Johnson]] reduced the reauthorization to two years, rather than the typical five-year term, to allow Trump to veto a hypothetical 2026 reauthorization should he win the [[2024 United States presidential election|2024 presidential election]], which he did.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Savage |first=Charlie |last2=Broadwater |first2=Luke |date=2024-04-20 |title=Senate Passes Two-Year Extension of Surveillance Law Just After It Expired |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/us/politics/senate-passes-surveillance-law-extension.html |access-date=2024-04-22 |work=[[The New York Times]] |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> After Congress rejected various privacy-related amendments to minimize the gap in Section 702 authorization, the Senate approved the bill by a 60–34 vote with bipartisan support, and President [[Joe Biden]] signed the two-year reauthorization on April 20, 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |date=20 April 2024 |title=Biden Signs Reauthorization of Surveillance Program Into Law Despite Privacy Concerns |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/04/20/1246076114/senate-passes-reauthorization-surveillance-program-fisa |access-date=22 April 2024 |work=[[NPR]]}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|United States|Politics|Law}}
* [[Church Committee]]
* [[Electronic Communications Privacy Act]]
* [[NSA warrantless surveillance controversy]]
* [[Operation Minaret]]
* [[Project Shamrock]]
* ''[[United States v. U.S. District Court|United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon]]''
* [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]]
** [[United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review]]
* [[Watergate]]

==References==
{{reflist|30em}}
<!-- Dead note "authorizationDToW": [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1811- 50 U.S.C. §§1811] - Authorization during a time of war -->

==Further reading==
* [[Glenn Greenwald|Greenwald, Glenn]]. "[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process]." ''[[The Guardian]]''. Tuesday June 18, 2013.
* Roberts, Dan. "[https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance US must fix secret Fisa courts, says top judge who granted surveillance orders]." ''[[The Guardian]]''. Tuesday July 9, 2013.

==External links==
{{Spoken Wikipedia|En-ForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceAct-article.ogg|date=2017-11-27}}
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1449/uslm/COMPS-1449.xml Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978] as amended ([https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1449/pdf/COMPS-1449.pdf PDF]/[https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/COMPS-1449 details]) in the [[United States Government Publishing Office|GPO]] [https://www.govinfo.gov/help/comps Statute Compilations collection]
* [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-13936/uslm/COMPS-13936.xml FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017] as amended ([https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-13936/pdf/COMPS-13936.pdf PDF]/[https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/COMPS-13936 details]) in the GPO Statute Compilations collection
* {{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html |title=The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FAQ |access-date=2005-12-21 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060303211716/http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html |archive-date=March 3, 2006 |df=mdy }} 
* [http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ EPIC FISA page] ({{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070912161703/http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ |date=September 12, 2007 }})
* [https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/index.html Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] resources from the Federation of American Scientists
* [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34279.pdf The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Brief Overview of Selected Issues], Congressional Research Service, February 8, 2008
* [https://fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and Recent Judicial Decisions], Congressional Research Service, September 22, 2004
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080316120113/http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/411/index.html NOW on PBS Uncovers Surveillance Details Through AT&T Whistleblower]
* [https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2004rept.pdf 2004 FISA Annual Report to Congress], via FAS
* [http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/foia/fisa-recipe.pdf FBI memo, "What do I have to do to get a FISA?]
* [https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/sojudge.pdf "So Judge, How Do I Get That FISA Warrant?" The Policy and Procedure for Conducting Electronic Surveillance.] The Army Lawyer, October 1997
* {{ExecutiveOrder|12139}} – Jimmy Carter's Executive order to provide as set forth in FISA for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes
* {{ExecutiveOrder|12949}} – Bill Clinton's Executive order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
* David Alan Jordan, [https://web.archive.org/web/20071030095250/http://www.ss8.com/pdfs/Ready_Guide_Download_Version.pdf Decrypting the Fourth Amendment: Warrantless NSA Surveillance and the Enhanced Expectation of Privacy Provided by Encrypted Voice over Internet Protocol] – ''Boston College Law Review'', Vol. 47, 2006
* [[K. A. Taipale]], [http://ssrn.com/abstract=959927 "The Ear of Dionysus: Rethinking Foreign Intelligence Surveillance"], 9 ''Yale J. L. & Tech.'' 128 (Spring 2007).
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070825205004/http://eteraz.org/2007/08/11/short-primer-on-new-fisa/ Plural Politics Protect American Act Plainspeak Legal Primer]
* {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071030095250/http://www.ss8.com/pdfs/Ready_Guide_Download_Version.pdf |date=October 30, 2007 |title=Guide to lawful intercept legislation around the world }}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080319031919/http://digital50.com/news/items/PR/2007/09/10/DC02717/prepared-remarks-of-kenneth-l-wainstein-assistant-attorney-general-for-national-sec.html Prepared Remarks of Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security] at the Georgetown University Law Center's National Security Center Symposium on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Modernization, September 10, 2007
* [http://www.dotgovwatch.com/?/archives/17-Department-of-Justice-Website-Illegally-Lobbies-Congress-LifeAndLiberty.gov.html Department of Justice on FISA and the Protect America Act]
* {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080227043506/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2248/show |date=February 27, 2008 |title=OpenCongress on S.2248 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007 }}
* [https://fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/secret.html Secret House meeting on FISA]
* [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22656 "The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs"], by [[Arlen Specter]], ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', Volume 56, Number 8. May 14, 2009

{{Presidency of Jimmy Carter}}
{{US Intelligence Reforms}}
{{Patriot Act}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court|Act]]
[[Category:1978 in American law]]
[[Category:1978 in international relations]]
[[Category:American intelligence gathering law]]
[[Category:Mass surveillance]]
[[Category:Privacy law in the United States]]
[[Category:Privacy of telecommunications]]
[[Category:Signals intelligence]]
[[Category:United States federal criminal legislation]]
[[Category:United States federal defense and national security legislation]]
[[Category:United States foreign relations legislation]]