A TRADITION OF SERVICE TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY

April 27, 2022 

Honorable Jerrold Nadler

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I herewith transmit the annual report for 2021 regarding the activities of the 

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts as required in 50 U.S.C. § 1873. Enclosed is a 

copy of the version of the report that we are making available online at 

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysis-reports/directors-report-foreignintelligence-surveillance-courts pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1873(a)(2). We are separately 

providing to you a classified version of the report. 

The report indicates that in calendar year 2021 the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Court denied 4 applications in full and 20 applications in part. The Court 

modified the orders sought in an additional 113 applications and granted the orders 

sought without modifications for 318 applications. Seven amicus curiae were appointed 

during the reporting period, and no findings were made under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(i)(2)(A). 

The Executive Branch has conducted the declassification review specified in 

50 U.S.C. § 1873(a)(1). The Department of Justice advised us that one figure in the 

report is classified at this time. We are not reporting this information in the public 

version of the report, but we are including it in the classified version. 
Honorable Jerrold Nadler

Page 2 

If we may be of further assistance to you in this or any other matter, please contact 

me or the Office of Legislative Affairs, Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts, at (202) 502-1700. 

Sincerely, 

Roslynn R. Mauskopf

Director 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable Jim Jordan 

Identical letters sent to: Honorable Richard J. Durbin

 Honorable Adam B. Schiff 

 Honorable Mark R. Warner 
Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

on Activities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts for 2021 

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 2021. 

Summary of Findings 

The FISC disclosed that it received 456 applications in 2021. After consideration by the 

Court, 318 orders were granted, 113 orders were modified, 20 orders were denied in part, 

and 4 applications were denied in full. The FISC did not take final action on one of these 

applications within the calendar year, 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 certifications submitted under 50 U.S.C. 

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

Seven appointments of a total of six 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) 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 
-2- 

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 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 
-3- 

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, 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 
-4- 

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. 

(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 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 47 31 15 1 0

1824 only 25 15 8 2 0

1805 and 

1824*

319 225 74 17 3

1842 10 6 4 0 0

1861 13† 5 6 0 1

1881a 

‡

0 0 0 0

1881b 0 0 0 0 0

1881c 42 36 6 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. 

† The government submitted this number of applications pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1861 in 

final form in 2021, but one of those applications was pending and did not receive final 

action within the 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 the calendar 

year. 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 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 
-6-

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 of an individual 

receiving an appointment is counted separately, such as when more than one individual is 

appointed in the same matter or when the same individual is appointed by the FISC and 

the FISCR at different stages of the same case. 

During the reporting period, seven appointments were made of six 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, Laura Donohue, Marc 

Zwillinger, James Orenstein, Mary McCord, and Ben Johnson. No finding was made in 

2021, 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 specially notes 

instances 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 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 as to the 

appropriateness of appointment of amicus. There were no such instances in 2021.