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

on Activities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts for 2022

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 or the Court) and 

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) (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 2022. 

Summary of Findings

The FISC disclosed that it received 358 applications in 2022. After consideration 

by the Court, 249 orders were granted, 87 orders were modified, 16 orders were 

denied in part, and 7 applications were denied in full. The FISC took final action

during calendar year 2022 on one application that had been submitted in 2021, as 

noted below. After completing the declassification review specified in 50 U.S.C. § 

1873(a)(1), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) advised the AO that the number 

of order(s) modified under 50 U.S.C. § 1881a is classified and so is not included in 

these totals. Four appointments of a total of four individuals to serve as amici

curiae were made by the FISA courts during this period.

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-

(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.

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 actions by the Court 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;
-3-

(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, 

properties, 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 likewise 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 

(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’s examination resulted in the government 

making material changes to applications and certifications, such as, 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 substantive modifications were 

made to the government’s proposed orders.

Orders Denied in Part

As noted above, consistent with the Director’s reports since 2016, 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, properties, or specific selection 

terms, and/or some forms of collection, but not others. 
-4-

Applications or Certifications Denied

The reported numbers include:

(1) any cases in which the Court denied in their entirety any final, signed 

applications or certifications submitted by the government pursuant to Rule 

9(b);

(2) any cases in which the government withdrew final, signed applications or 

certifications it had submitted pursuant to Rule 9(b) after being advised that 

the Court would not grant the applications or certifications as submitted by 

the government; and

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

applications or certifications pursuant to Rule 9(b) after being advised that 

the Court, based on its assessment of the corresponding proposed 

applications or certifications submitted pursuant to Rule 9(a), would not 

grant the applications or certifications as proposed by the government.

(Remainder of this page is left intentionally blank.)
-5- 

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 

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 41 30 7 3 1

1824 only 24 15 9 0 0

1805 and 

1824*

259 176 64 13 6

1842 4 3 1 0 0

1861 10 6 5† 0 0

1881a 0 0 ‡ 0 0

1881b 0 0 0 0 0

1881c 20 19 1 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. 

† One application submitted pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1861 included in this number

was filed in 2021 but did not receive final action within that calendar year.

‡ The government submitted this number of certification(s) during calendar year 

2021, but the Court did not take final action on any such certification(s) within that

calendar year. The Court’s disposition of the certification(s) is reported here. After 

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

DOJ has advised the AO that this number is currently classified for national 

security reasons.
-6-

Amicus Curiae

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

as amici 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 its 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 it 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 in which the

court deems this appropriate or, upon motion, may permit an individual or 

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

For purposes of reporting under 50 U.S.C. § 1873(a)(1)(E), each instance in which

an individual received an amicus curiae appointment is counted separately, such as 

when more than one individual was appointed in the same matter or when the same 

individual was appointed by both the FISC and the FISCR at different stages of the 

same case. 

During the reporting period, four appointments were made for four individuals to 

serve as amici curiae by the FISA courts. The names of the individuals appointed 

during the reporting period to serve as amici curiae are Amy Jeffress, Amanda 

Claire Hoover, Marc Zwillinger, and James Orenstein. One finding was made in 

2022, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(A), that an amicus curiae appointment 

was not appropriate. 

Consistent with the Director’s reports since 2017, this report also specifically notes

instances in which the Court advised the government that it had considered the

appointment of an amicus curiae to address a novel or significant question of law 

raised in a proposed application, but the government ultimately did not proceed 

with the proposed application or modified the final application such that it did not 

present a novel or significant question of law, thereby obviating a requirement for 

consideration of the appropriateness of appointment of amicus curiae. There were

no such instances in 2022.