595 U.S. 344
SCOTUS2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Yassir Fazaga, Ali Malik, Yasser Abdel Rahim), members of Southern California Muslim communities, filed a putative class action alleging the FBI ran a confidential informant program that indiscriminately surveilled Muslims (phone numbers, emails, hours of audio/video) and violated constitutional and statutory rights, including FISA §1810.
- The Government invoked the state secrets privilege via classified and public declarations (including the Attorney General) and moved to dismiss most claims; the District Court reviewed classified materials in camera and ex parte and dismissed those claims as risking disclosure (the FISA §1810 claim was dismissed on sovereign-immunity grounds).
- The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, holding that FISA §1806(f) displaces the state secrets privilege and its dismissal remedy, and that §1806(f) applies broadly when an aggrieved person challenges surveillance in any civil case.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether §1806(f) displaces the state secrets privilege.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit: §1806(f) does not displace the state secrets privilege because (1) FISA’s text contains no clear statement altering the privilege, and (2) §1806(f) and the state secrets doctrine serve different inquiries, remedies, and procedures and are compatible.
- The Court limited its holding to displacement; it did not decide the correct interpretation of §1806(f), whether the Government’s evidence is privileged, or whether dismissal below was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1806(f) displaces the state secrets privilege | §1806(f) covers civil challenges to surveillance and thus displaces the state secrets privilege and its dismissal remedy | §1806(f) is narrow (concerned with admissibility) and does not displace the state secrets privilege | §1806(f) does not displace the state secrets privilege |
| Scope/trigger of §1806(f): when it is triggered (use/admissibility vs discovery) | §1806(f) is triggered when the Government "uses" FISA-derived information by invoking privilege or when a plaintiff seeks to discover FISA materials | §1806(f) applies only when a litigant challenges admissibility or the Government seeks to use surveillance evidence; invoking privilege is not a "use" and the complaint’s relief was not a proper "motion or request" | Court declined to resolve the statutory-scope dispute; reversed on the alternative ground that §1806(f) does not displace the privilege |
| Whether dismissal on state-secrets grounds was proper / contours of dismissal remedy | Dismissal is available only in limited circumstances (e.g., spy-contracting/when the very subject is secret) | Government contends dismissal is appropriate in other situations invoking state secrets | Court did not decide whether dismissal was proper or fully define dismissal contours; remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- General Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 563 U.S. 478 (2011) (modern articulation of the state secrets privilege and dismissal remedy)
- United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) (foundational statement of the state secrets privilege)
- Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1 (2005) (state secrets can bar litigation when the subject matter is secret)
- Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1876) (early precedent recognizing national security bar to some suits)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (background on FISA and foreign-intelligence surveillance)
- Norfolk Redevelopment & Housing Auth. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Va., 464 U.S. 30 (1983) (presumption against repeal of common-law privileges)
- Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) (canons regarding statutory text and constitutional concerns)