A TRADITION OF SERVICE TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY

April 27, 2020

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 2019 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 2019 the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Court denied 20 applications in full and 38 applications in part. The Court 

modified the orders sought in an additional 264 applications and granted the orders 

sought without modifications for 688 applications. Two 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 two figures in the 

report are classified at this time. We are not reporting these figures in the public version 

of the report, but we are including them 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, 

James C. Duff 

Director 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable Jim Jordan

 Identical letters sent to: Honorable Lindsey Graham

Honorable Adam B. Schiff 

Honorable Richard Burr
Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

on Activities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts for 2019

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 (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 2019.

Summary of Findings

The FISC disclosed that it received 1,010 applications in 2019. After consideration by the court, 688

orders were granted, 264 orders were modified, 38 orders were denied in part, and 20 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 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. Two appointments of a total of two 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. 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 affected 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 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. 
-3-

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 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 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 78 53 20 4 1

1824 only 36 27 6 1 2

1805 and 

1824†

749 506 198 32 13

1842 24 10 12 0 2

1861 63 39 21 1 2

1881a ‡ 0 ‡ 0 0

1881b 0 0 0 0 0

1881c 60 53 7 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. 

‡ 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 these

numbers are 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 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).

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, there were two appointments of 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 as follows: David Kris and Ben Johnson. No findings were made in 2019, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 

1803(i)(2)(A), that an amicus curiae appointment was not appropriate. 
-5-

Consistent with the Director’s report for 2017 and 2018, this report 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 two such instances in 2019, which are reflected 

in the table above as a full denial and modification of the applications at issue, respectively.