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

on activities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts for 2015

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 court and

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

appointments by the FISA courts.  

Because Congress enacted the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 on June 2, 2015, this report covers the period

from June 8, 2015 (the beginning of the first full docket week after the effective date of the USA

FREEDOM Act) through December 31, 2015. In future years, each report will include data for the entire

calendar year.

Summary of Findings

From June 8, 2015, to December 31, 2015, the FISC disclosed that it received 1,010 applications. After

consideration by the court, 836 orders were granted, 169 orders were modified, and 5 applications were

denied. 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 the number of  certifications submitted and the number

of orders modified under 50 U.S.C. § 1881a are classified for national security reasons and so are not

included in these totals. Four appointments of individuals to serve as amicus curiae were made by the

FISA courts during this period.  

Explanation of Selected Terms

More detailed statistics appear in the table below. To help readers understand what is included and

excluded in the stated totals, this explanation of selected terms is provided as a reference.

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.

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).   

Substantive modifications include, but are not limited to, those in which the Court granted in part the

authorizations requested by the government (e.g., by approving some targets or forms of collection, but

not others).  

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  

(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. Statistics previously reported by the Court to Congress relating to

the prevalence of modifications to matters submitted to the Court have included all matters

that “involved substantive changes to the information provided by the government or to the

authorities granted as a result of Court inquiry or action.” See, e.g., Letter from Hon. Reggie B.

Walton to Patrick Leahy, October 11, 2013 (available online at

www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Correspondence%20Leahy‐11‐2013.pdf). In some

instances, Court examination resulted in the government making material changes to
applications and certifications; for example, to proffer 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 Court includes here only cases in which

there were substantive modifications to the government’s proposed orders.

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.

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.

Section Applications or

Certifications Orders Granted Orders Modified

Applications or

Certifications

Denied

1805 only 80 57 23 0

1824 only 23 17 6 0

1805 and 18241 754 623 126 5

1842 40 33 7 0

1861 68 61 7 0

1881a See note below2   0 See note below2 0

1881b 0 0 0 0

1881c 45 45 0 0 1

  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.   2 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, on four occasions individuals were appointed to serve as amicus curiae

under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i). The names of the three individuals appointed to serve as amicus curiae are as

follows:  Preston Burton, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II  (with Freedom Works), and Amy Jeffress. All four

appointments in 2015 were made pursuant to § 1803(i)(2)(B). Five findings were made that an amicus

curiae appointment was not appropriate under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(A) (however, in three of those five

instances, the court appointed an amicus curiae under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(B) in the same matter).