Applicability of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's Notification Provision to Security Clearance Adjudications by the Department of Justice Access Review Committee
Background
- FISA §1806(c) requires notice to an aggrieved person before using information obtained from electronic surveillance in US proceedings.
- ARC adjudication concerns DOJ revocation of an employee’s security clearance and potential use of surveillance-derived information.
- Assumes revocation of the employee’s clearance, ARC review, and government use of surveillance information in the ARC proceeding.
- ARC is composed of Deputy Attorney General and two other senior DOJ officials or their designees and its decision is final unless AG personally exercises appeal authority.
- Court holds that §106(c) generally applies to ARC adjudications but may raise as-applied constitutional concerns if notice disclosure implicates executive privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ARC adjudication is a proceeding under §106(c). | ARC is not a traditional proceeding; not a court or hearing. | ARC is an 'other proceeding' before a US authority; broad interpretation. | ARC adjudication qualifies as an 'other proceeding' under §106(c). |
| Whether §106(c) applies to security-clearance adjudications before ARC. | Not necessarily applicable to internal personnel processes. | §106(c) applies to ARC adjudications. | §106(c) generally applies to ARC adjudications. |
| Whether applying §106(c) in ARC adjudications raises separation-of-powers concerns about Executive privilege. | Notification could hamper executive decision-making or privilege. | Congress may regulate such notifications despite executive prerogatives. | Noted potential as-applied constitutional concerns; infrequent and bounded by limited notice scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1988) (Presidential authority to classify information exists independent of Congress.)
- Whistleblower Protections for Classified Disclosures, 22 Op. O.L.C. 92 (O.L.C. 1998) (Executive privilege limits on congressional disclosure powers.)
- Mink v. United States, 410 U.S. 73 (U.S. 1973) (Executive privilege limitations on congressional interference.)
- United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1947) (Regulation of security-clearance processes and related disclosures.)
- Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1882) (Historical context on government disclosures in investigations.)
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2009) (Supreme Court on federal authority over tribal land decisions and executive power limits.)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 856 F.2d 685 (4th Cir. 1988) (Notice under 106(c) in grand jury context and breadth of ‘proceeding’ term.)
- Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (U.S. 1988) (Separation of powers considerations in delegation and investigative authority.)