IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50841

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

NIDAL M. HASAN,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

U.S.D.C. No. 6:12-CV-195

Before OWEN and HAYNES, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM:**

Defendant-Appellant Nidal Hasan appeals from the district court’s denial

of his motion to suppress or disclose evidence obtained through the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq., which may be

relevant to his upcoming court martial trial on numerous counts of murder and

attempted murder at Fort Hood in Texas. We AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 10, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-50841 Document: 00512303328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2013
No. 12-50841

As part of the court martial proceeding, the Government gave notice that

it “intends to enter into evidence or otherwise use or disclose . . . information

obtained or derived from electronic surveillance conducted pursuant to [FISA].” 

50 U.S.C. § 1806(c). Hasan then moved for that evidence to be either disclosed

to him or suppressed. See id. § 1806(e). The military judge subsequently

transferred consideration of Hasan’s motion to the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas, as permitted under FISA. See id. § 1806(f). 

The Attorney General certified that disclosure and an adversarial hearing here

could harm national security, and the Government invoked FISA’s in camera,

ex parte review procedures. See id. The district court granted the request,

reviewed the challenged materials in camera, and denied Hasan’s motion.

We first conclude that we have jurisdiction to consider Hasan’s appeal. 

FISA specifically bestows jurisdiction on the federal district courts to consider

the matters at issue here, which necessarily encompasses appropriate appellate

proceedings. See id. Furthermore, we may exercise jurisdiction under the

collateral order doctrine when, as here, the district court’s FISA ruling would

otherwise be effectively unreviewable.1 See, e.g., United States v. Hamide, 914

F.2d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). Because this court cannot

exercise appellate jurisdiction over Hasan’s court martial, it has jurisdiction to

review the propriety of the district court’s rulings here. See United States v. Ott,

827 F.2d 473, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1987) (exercising jurisdiction over FISA appeal

originating from court martial proceedings). 

Turning to the merits, Hasan’s briefing does not clearly challenge the

district court’s evidentiary or procedural rulings. Nor does he ask for an in

1 See generally Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949) (“This

decision appears to fall in that small class which finally determine claims of right separable

from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too

independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the

whole case is adjudicated.”).

2

 Case: 12-50841 Document: 00512303328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2013
No. 12-50841

camera examination of the FISA materials reviewed below or a detailed analysis

of any specific district court ruling. To the extent he addresses some of the

evidentiary and procedural objections he raised in the district court, it is in the

context of complaining that FISA prevents him from making more specific

objections.

Hasan’s brief instead raises one overarching due-process objection against

the FISA framework. See United States v. Damrah, 412 F.3d 618, 624 (6th Cir.

2005) (“[Appellant] does not argue that the district court failed to follow the

statutorily prescribed procedures applicable when a district court reviews the

‘legality of the [FISA] surveillance.’ See [50 U.S.C. § 1806(f)]. Instead, he

asserts that the procedures themselves violated his constitutional rights.”). He

argues that “a flawed, draconian procedure [is] in place to litigate [his] access to

[the FISA-obtained] information” and that “[w]ithout access to this information,

[he will be] denied due process.” Accordingly, we conclude that the only issue

properly raised on appeal is a generalized due-process objection against FISA.

That argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. This court explicitly

held—in a case not cited by Hasan—that the FISA provisions at issue comport

with due process. See United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 567-68 (5th Cir.

2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 525 (2012). Indeed, every court of appeals to

consider a facial constitutional challenge to FISA—whether for due-process or

Fourth Amendment purposes—has upheld the statute. See id. at 567 (citing

cases from the D.C., Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits); United States v. AbuJihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 120 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 3062 (2011)

(citing cases from the First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, as well

as numerous district court authorities).

The D.C. Circuit, moreover, long ago rejected the general argument Hasan

makes here in a case in which now-Justice Scalia sat:

3

 Case: 12-50841 Document: 00512303328 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2013
No. 12-50841

We appreciate the difficulties of appellants’ counsel in this case. 

They must argue that the determination of legality is so complex

that an adversary hearing with full access to relevant materials is

necessary. But without access to the relevant materials their claim

of complexity can be given no concreteness. It is pure assertion. 

Congress was also aware of these difficulties. But it chose to

resolve them through means other than mandatory disclosure. In

FISA Congress has made a thoroughly reasonable attempt to

balance the competing concerns of individual privacy and foreign

intelligence. As noted, oversight of electronic surveillance is

provided by all three branches of government. Appellants are

understandably reluctant to be excluded from the process whereby

the legality of a surveillance by which they were incidentally

affected is judged. But it cannot be said that this exclusion rises to

the level of a constitutional violation.

United States v. Belfield, 692 F.2d 141, 148 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

El-Mezain forecloses Hasan’s attack on FISA.2

AFFIRMED.

2 The El-Mezain court also foreclosed Hasan’s suggestion that the district court should

authorize disclosure to any member of his legal team who possesses an appropriate security

clearance. See 664 F.3d at 568 (citing Ott, 827 F.2d at 477).

4

 Case: 12-50841 Document: 00512303328 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/10/2013