Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

on Activities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts for 2017

Introduction

Under 50 U.S.C. § 1873(a)(2), enacted as part of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 (Pub. L. No. 114-23), the 

Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) is required to publish statistical 

information on certain activities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (collectively referred to as the FISA courts) as detailed in 50 

U.S.C. § 1873(a)(1). This includes the number of applications or certifications submitted to the FISC and 

whether those requests were granted, modified, or denied. It also includes information on amicus curiae 

appointments by the FISA courts. This is the Director’s report for calendar year 2017.

Summary of Findings

The FISC disclosed that it received 1,614 applications in 2017. After consideration by the court, 1,147

orders were granted, 391 orders were modified, 50 orders were denied in part, and 26 applications 

were denied in full. After completing the declassification review specified in 50 U.S.C. § 1873(a)(1), the 

U.S. Department of Justice advised the AO that the number of certifications modified under 50 U.S.C. §

1881a is classified for national security reasons and so is not included in these totals.

Explanation of Selected Terms

More detailed statistics appear in the table below. An explanation of selected terms is provided as a 

reference to help readers understand what is included and excluded in the stated totals.

Applications or Certifications

The reported numbers include:

(1) applications or certifications that were filed in signed, final form pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the 

FISC Rules of Procedure; and

(2) proposed applications or certifications (submitted pursuant to Rule 9(a) of the FISC Rules of 

Procedure) for which the government decided not to submit a corresponding signed, final 

application or certification pursuant to Rule 9(b) after being advised that the Court, based on its 

assessment of the proposed application or certification, would not grant the application or 

certification as proposed by the government.

The reported numbers do not include motions or other requests for relief made after the Court acted on 

the application or certification in that docket.
-2-

Orders Granted

The reported numbers include orders granted without substantive modifications to the orders proposed 

by the government. They do not include any action taken by the Court in response to motions or other 

requests for relief made after the Court acted on the application or certification in a docket.

Orders Modified

The reported numbers include:

(1) any substantive modifications to proposed orders that accompanied a signed, final 

application or certification submitted by the government pursuant to Rule 9(b), including when 

such modifications were effected through a supplemental order issued by the Court; and

(2) any substantive modifications to proposed orders that accompanied proposed applications 

or certifications submitted by the government pursuant to Rule 9(a) when such modifications 

resulted from the Court’s assessment of such a submission, including when such modifications 

were subsequently reflected in a proposed order that accompanied a signed, final application or 

certification submitted by the government pursuant to Rule 9(b). 

The following Court actions are among those that would be regarded as substantive modifications to an 

order: 

(1) imposing a new reporting requirement or modifying one proposed by the government;

(2) changing the description or specification of a targeted person, of a facility to be subjected to 

electronic surveillance or of property to be searched;

(3) modifying the minimization procedures proposed by the government; or

(4) shortening the duration of some or all of the authorities requested.

The numbers of modification in the table below do not include dispositions in which the Court granted 

in part and denied in part the authorizations requested by the government by approving some targets, 

some facilities, places, premises, property or specific selection terms, and/or some forms of collection,

but not others. As discussed below, these modifications are reported separately as partial denials of the 

relief sought in the application or certification.

The reported numbers of orders modified do not include:

(1) any actions taken by the Court in response to motions or other requests for relief made after 

the Court acted on the application or certification in that docket; or 
-3-

(2) any modifications made by the government to an application or certification that it had 

submitted pursuant to Rule 9(a) or Rule 9(b) – as opposed to modifications to the proposed 

orders submitted therewith. 

In some instances, the Court examination resulted in the government making material changes 

to applications and certifications; for example, proffering additional facts to support a required 

judicial finding of probable cause or to address minimization concerns. Consistent with the 

statutory mandate in 50 U.S.C. § 1873(a), however, the number reported in this category 

includes only cases in which there were substantive modifications to the government’s 

proposed orders.

Orders Denied in Part

As noted above, consistent with the Director’s 2016 report, partial denials of the relief sought by the 

government are captured separately under the heading “Orders Denied in Part.” These are dispositions 

in which the Court granted in part and denied in part the authorizations requested by the government 

by approving some targets, some facilities, places, premises, property or specific selection terms, and/or 

some forms of collection, but not others. 

Applications or Certifications Denied

The reported numbers include:

(1) any cases in which the Court denied in its entirety a final, signed application or certification 

submitted by the government pursuant to Rule 9(b);

(2) any cases in which the government withdrew a final, signed application or certification it had 

submitted pursuant to Rule 9(b) after being advised that the Court would not grant the 

application or certification as submitted by the government; and

(3) any cases in which the government decided not to submit a final, signed application or certification 

pursuant to Rule 9(b) after being advised that the Court, based on its assessment of the corresponding 

proposed application or certification submitted pursuant to Rule 9(a), would not grant the application or 

certification as proposed by the government.
-4-

Table 1

In accordance with the reporting requirements specified in 50 U.S.C. § 1873(a)(1), the statistics in this 

table are itemized by section of the Statute. Some of the statistics reported herein differ from those in 

comparable reports prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Director of National 

Intelligence (DNI) because those agencies track and tabulate actions taken only with respect to final 

applications and certifications filed pursuant to Rule 9(b).

Section Applications or 

Certifications

Orders 

Granted

Orders 

Modified

Orders

Denied in 

Part

Applications or 

Certifications 

Denied

1805 only 104 60 36 4 4

1824 only 33 20 9 2 2

1805 and 

1824†

1,235 868 308 41 18

1842 34 19 13 1 1

1861 118 92 23 2 1

1881a 0 0 

‡ 0 0

1881b 0 0 0 0 0

1881c 90 88 2 0 0

† Requests for combined authority to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches under 50 U.S.C. § 1805 and § 1824, respectively, are 

included in this row and are not separately reflected in the rows addressing requests for authority to conduct electronic surveillance (Section 

1805) and physical search (Section 1824) above. 

‡ This number reflects certification(s) submitted during calendar year 2016 that were decided in 2017. No additional certifications were 

submitted during 2017. After completing the declassification review specified in 50 U.S.C. § 1873(a)(1), the U.S. Department of Justice has 

advised the AO that this number is currently classified for national security reasons.

Amicus Curiae

50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2) authorizes the FISA courts to appoint individuals to serve as amicus curiae. Under 

50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(A), a FISA court must appoint an individual to serve as amicus curiae to assist the 

court in the consideration of any application for an order or review that, in the opinion of the court, 

presents a novel or significant interpretation of the law, unless the court issues a finding that such 

appointment is not appropriate. Furthermore, a FISA court may appoint an individual or organization to 

serve as amicus curiae in any instance as such court deems appropriate or, upon motion, permit an 

individual or organization leave to file an amicus curiae brief. 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(B).

During the reporting period, no individual was appointed to serve as amicus curiae by the FISA courts.

No findings were made in 2017, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(A), that an amicus curiae 

appointment was not appropriate. There were three matters in which the Court advised the 

government that it was considering appointment of an amicus curiae to address a novel or significant 

question of law raised in proposed applications, but the government ultimately did not proceed with the 

proposed applications at issue, or modified the final applications such that they did not present a novel 

or significant question of law, thereby obviating a requirement for consideration as to the 

appropriateness of appointment of amicus. These matters are reflected in the table above as, 

respectively, a modification to a proposed order, an application denied in full, and an application denied
-5-

in part. This is the first report including information about such occurrences. A similarly small number of 

such events occurred during prior reporting periods but were not discussed in the reports for those 

years.