Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
Edward C. Liu
Legislative Attorney
September 12, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42725
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
Summary
Reauthorizations of expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have
been an annual occurrence in Congress since 2009. Prior to 2012, the legislative debate and
reauthorizations largely dealt with three amendments to FISA that are commonly linked to the
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act). Most recently, in 2011, these three
provisions were extended until June 1, 2015. For a more detailed discussion of these three
provisions, see CRS Report R40138, Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) Extended Until June 1, 2015, by Edward C. Liu.
In contrast, the reauthorization being debated in 2012 deals with Title VII of FISA, as added by
the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Title VII is only tangentially related to the subjects of the
previous years’ debates in that they are amendments to the same statute. Therefore, the legislative
activity in prior years should be conceptually separated from the current debate and legislation
that would address the expiration of Title VII of FISA at the end of this year.
Title VII of FISA, as added by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, created new separate
procedures for targeting non-U.S. persons and U.S. persons reasonably believed to be outside the
United States. While some provisions of Title VII could be characterized as relaxing FISA’s
traditional standards for electronic surveillance and access to stored communications, other
provisions of Title VII have expanded FISA’s scope to require judicial approval of activities, such
as surveillance of U.S. persons on foreign soil, that were previously unregulated by the statute.
Upon enactment of Title VII, a number of organizations brought suit challenging newly enacted
procedures for surveillance of non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be abroad. The suit
alleged that this authority violated the targets’ Fourth Amendment rights, because it permitted
acquisition of international communications without requiring an individualized court order
supported by probable cause. However, before the merits of that question could be reached, the
government argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Title VII. That question is
currently pending review in the United States Supreme Court.
Unless reauthorizing legislation is enacted, Title VII of FISA will be repealed effective December
31, 2012. Transition procedures apply to orders that are in effect on December 31, 2012, under
any of the three provisions of Title VII. The transition procedures authorize the continued effect
of these orders until their normal expiration dates. At least two bills in the 112th Congress would
extend Title VII of FISA beyond its current expiration date of December 31, 2012. H.R. 5949 was
passed by the House of Representatives on September 12, 2012, and would extend Title VII until
December 31, 2017. In the Senate, S. 3276, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, would
extend Title VII until June 1, 2015, in order to synchronize its reauthorization cycle with that of
other temporary provisions of FISA.
Congressional Research Service
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
Contents
Overview of FISA and Other Laws Governing Surveillance .......................................................... 1
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) ..................................................................... 2
Executive Order 12333.............................................................................................................. 3
Fourth Amendment.................................................................................................................... 4
Procedure for Targeting Non-U.S. Persons Abroad Without Individualized Court Orders
Under § 702 .................................................................................................................................. 4
Scope of Acquisitions ................................................................................................................ 5
Certification Procedure.............................................................................................................. 6
Exigent Circumstances .............................................................................................................. 6
Comparison with Prior Law ...................................................................................................... 7
Legal Challenges ....................................................................................................................... 7
Procedures for Targeting U.S. Persons Abroad Using Court Orders Under §§ 703 and 704........... 8
Requirement for Court Order .................................................................................................... 8
Scope of Acquisitions ................................................................................................................ 8
Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 9
Comparison of §§ 703 and 704 ................................................................................................. 9
Comparison with Prior Law ...................................................................................................... 9
Legislative Activity in the 112th Congress ..................................................................................... 10
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
eauthorizations of expiring provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
have been an annual occurrence in Congress since 2009.1 Prior to 2012, the legislative
R debate and reauthorizations largely dealt with three amendments to FISA that are
commonly linked to the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act).2 Most recently,
in 2011, these three provisions were extended until June 1, 2015.3 For a more detailed discussion
of these three provisions, see CRS Report R40138, Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) Extended Until June 1, 2015, by Edward C. Liu.
In contrast, the reauthorization being debated in 2012 deals with Title VII of FISA, as added by
the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Title VII is only tangentially related to the subjects of the
previous years’ debates in that it amends the same statute. Therefore, the legislative activity in
prior years should be conceptually separated from the current debate and legislation that would
address the expiration of Title VII of FISA at the end of this year. This report describes the
changes that were made by the FISA Amendments Act within the context of the government’s
authority to conduct surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.
Overview of FISA and Other Laws Governing
Surveillance
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides a statutory framework by which
government agencies may, when gathering foreign intelligence information,4 obtain authorization
to conduct wiretapping5 or physical searches,6 utilize pen registers and trap and trace devices,7 or
access specified business records and other tangible things.8 Authorization for such activities is
typically obtained via a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a
specialized court created by FISA to act as a neutral judicial decision maker in the context of
activities authorized by the statute.
Title VII, added by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, provides additional procedures for the
acquisition of foreign intelligence information regarding persons who are believed to be outside
1 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 111-118, § 1004 (2009); An Act to extend expiring provisions of the
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 until February 28, 2011, P.L. 111-141 (2010); FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, P.L. 112-3 (2011);
PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, P.L. 112-14 (2011).
2 P.L. 107-56. In reality, only two of these provisions (relating to roving wiretaps and access to business records) were
part of the USA PATRIOT Act. The third provision (relating to lone-wolf terrorists) initially arose from the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108-458.
3 P.L. 112-14.
4 Although FISA is often discussed in relation to the prevention of terrorism, it applies to the gathering of foreign
intelligence information for other purposes. For example, it extends to the collection of information necessary for the
conduct of foreign affairs. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e) (2008) (definition of “foreign intelligence information”).
5 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1808.
6 50 U.S.C. §§ 1822-1826.
7 50 U.S.C. §§ 1841-1846. Pen registers capture the numbers dialed on a telephone line; trap and trace devices identify
the originating number of a call on a particular telephone line. See 18 U.S.C. § 3127(3)-(4) (2008).
8 50 U.S.C. §§ 1861-1862 (2008).
Congressional Research Service
1
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
of the United States. These provisions affect both U.S. persons9 as well as other non-U.S. persons.
Specifically, the FISA Amendments Act added
• a new procedure for targeting non-U.S. persons abroad without individualized
court orders;10
• a new requirement to obtain an individualized court order when targeting U.S.
persons abroad;11 and
• new procedures that can be used to obtain court orders authorizing the targeting
of U.S. persons abroad for electronic surveillance, the acquisition of stored
communications, and other means of acquiring foreign intelligence information.12
Absent intervening legislation, Title VII of FISA will be automatically repealed on December 31,
2012.13 Transition procedures apply to orders authorizing surveillance activities pursuant to Title
VII that are in effect on December 31, 2012,14 and permit the continued effect of such orders until
their normal expiration dates.
FISA is just one of several federal laws that govern the use of electronic surveillance for
legitimate investigative purposes. The principal others are the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (ECPA), Executive Order 12333, and the Fourth Amendment. Each of these, and the
manner in which they may overlap or interact with FISA, will be discussed briefly before turning
to the expiring provisions added by the FISA Amendments Act.
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
ECPA provides three sets of general prohibitions accompanied by judicially supervised
exceptions to facilitate law enforcement investigations.15 The prohibitions address (1) the
interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications (wiretapping);16 (2) access to the content
of stored electronic communications and to communications transaction records;17 and (3) the use
of trap and trace devices and pen registers (essentially in-and-out secret “caller id” devices).18
9 A U.S. person is defined as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an
unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not
include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(i).
10 50 U.S.C. § 1881a.
11 50 U.S.C. § 1881c(a)(2).
12 50 U.S.C. §§ 1881b, 1881c.
13 50 U.S.C. § 1881 note.
14 Id. at § 404(b).
15 See CRS Report 98-326, Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic
Eavesdropping, by Gina Stevens and Charles Doyle, for a more detailed discussion of the federal laws governing
wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping, along with appendices including copies of the texts of ECPA and FISA.
16 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522.
17 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712.
18 18 U.S.C. §§ 3121-3127. Pen registers capture the numbers dialed on a telephone line; trap and trace devices identify
the originating number of a call on a particular telephone line. See 18 U.S.C. § 3127(3)-(4).
Congressional Research Service
2
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
In some circumstances, the use of surveillance activities for foreign intelligence purposes might
fall within the scope of the activities prohibited by ECPA. There are two exceptions to ECPA’s
general prohibitions that address this situation.
First, if the activity in question falls within the definition of electronic surveillance under FISA,
then it may be conducted if the government complies with FISA’s procedures. For example, the
interception of a domestic telephone call is the type of activity that would generally be prohibited
by ECPA. It would also qualify as electronic surveillance under FISA. Therefore, if the
government obtained a court order from the FISC authorizing the interception of that call, it
would be a lawful surveillance activity notwithstanding the general prohibition against
wiretapping found in ECPA.
Second, if the activity in question is not electronic surveillance, as that term is defined in FISA,
but involves the acquisition of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign
communications, then it is not subject to ECPA.19 For example, the interception of an
international telephone call would not be considered electronic surveillance for purposes of FISA
if the target were the person on the non-domestic end of the conversation and the acquisition
would not occur on United States soil. So long as the purpose of that acquisition was to acquire
foreign intelligence information, then it would not be subject to the general prohibitions in ECPA.
Although both exceptions result in the non-application of ECPA, they differ in one important
aspect that is particularly relevant to understanding the changes wrought by Title VII of FISA.
Both ECPA and FISA provide that the two statutes constitute the exclusive means of conducting
electronic surveillance, as defined in FISA.20 As a result, using the procedures under FISA is
compulsory for those activities that qualify as electronic surveillance but cannot be accomplished
by, and are exempt from, ECPA. In contrast, prior to the FISA Amendments Act, FISA’s
procedures were generally never needed for wiretapping activities that did not qualify as
electronic surveillance, and which were also exempt from ECPA because they involved
international or foreign communications. However, as discussed below, the recently added § 704
of FISA does make FISA’s procedures compulsory when the target of such surveillance is a
United States person. Those activities that remain beyond the scope of either ECPA or FISA are
governed by Executive Order 12333 and the Fourth Amendment, discussed in the next two
sections.
Executive Order 12333
Section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333,21 as amended,22 delegates to the Attorney General the
power to approve the use of any technique for intelligence purposes within the United States or
against a U.S. person abroad. If a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, the
executive order requires the Attorney General to determine in each case that there is probable
cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign
19 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f). (explicitly disavowing any application of ECPA to the acquisition by the United States of
foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications through a means other than electronic
surveillance, as that term is defined in FISA.).
20 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f); 50 U.S.C. § 1812(a).
21 46 Fed. Reg. 59,941 (December 4, 1981), as amended by E.O. 13284, 68 Fed. Reg. 4,075 (Jan. 23, 2003); E.O.
13355, 69 Fed. Reg. 53,593 (Aug. 27, 2004); and E.O. 13470, 73 Fed. Reg. 45,325 (July 30, 2008).
22 50 U.S.C. § 401 note.
Congressional Research Service
3
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
power. The authority delegated by Executive Order 12333 must be exercised in accordance with
FISA, but also extends to activities beyond FISA’s reach.
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against “unreasonable searches and
seizures.”23 In domestic criminal law investigations, it generally requires law enforcement
officers to obtain a court-issued warrant before conducting a search.24 When the warrant
requirement does not apply, government activity is generally subject to a “reasonableness” test
under the Fourth Amendment.25
The extent to which the warrant requirement applies to the government’s collection of foreign
intelligence is unclear. In a 1972 case, the Supreme Court invalidated warrantless electronic
surveillance of domestic organizations on Fourth Amendment grounds, despite the government’s
assertion of a national security rationale.26 However, it indicated that its conclusion might be
different in a future case involving the electronic surveillance of foreign powers or their agents,
within or outside the United States.27 In a 2002 case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
of Review upheld FISA, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, against a Fourth Amendment
challenge.28 The court assumed, without deciding the question, that FISA court orders do not
constitute warrants for purposes of the Fourth Amendment analysis. Relying on a general
reasonableness analysis, it nonetheless upheld such orders, emphasizing both the privacy
protections in the statutory framework and the governmental interest in preventing national
security threats.29
Procedure for Targeting Non-U.S. Persons Abroad
Without Individualized Court Orders Under § 702
In late 2005, the New York Times reported that the federal government had “monitored the
international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands,
of people in the United States without warrants.”30 Subsequently, President George W. Bush
23 U.S. Const. amend. IV.
24 See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (“[S]earches conducted outside the judicial process without prior
approval by judge or magistrate are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few
specifically established and well delineated exceptions.”).
25 Also called the “general balancing,” “general reasonableness,” or “totality-of-the circumstances” test, it requires a
court to determine the constitutionality of a search or seizure “by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which [a
search or seizure] intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the
promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848 (2006).
26 U.S. v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 321-24 (1972) (also referred to as the Keith case, so named for the District
Court judge who initially ordered disclosure of unlawful warrantless electronic surveillance to the defendants).
27 Id. at 321-22. See also In re Directives Pursuant to Section 105b of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 551
F.3d 1004 (U.S. Foreign Intell. Survellance Ct. Rev. 2008) (holding that the foreign intelligence surveillance of targets
reasonably believed to be outside of the U.S. qualifies for the “special needs” exception to the warrant requirement).
28 In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (Foreign Intell. Survellance Ct. Rev. 2002).
29 Id. at 738-46.
30 James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts, N.Y. Times, Dec. 16, 2005, at 1.
Congressional Research Service
4
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
acknowledged that, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, he had authorized the National
Security Agency to conduct a Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) to “intercept international
communications into and out of the United States” by “persons linked to al Qaeda or related
terrorist organizations” based upon his asserted “constitutional authority to conduct warrantless
wartime electronic surveillance of the enemy.”31 Now discontinued, the TSP appears to have been
active from shortly after September 11, 2001, to January of 2007.32
After the TSP activities were concluded in 2007, Congress enacted the Protect America Act
(PAA), which established a mechanism for the acquisition, via a joint certification by the Director
of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Attorney General (AG), but without an individualized
court order, of foreign intelligence information concerning a person reasonably believed to be
outside the United States.33 This temporary authority ultimately expired after approximately six
months, on February 16, 2008. Several months later, the Congress enacted the FISA Amendments
Act of 2008, which created separate procedures for targeting non-U.S. persons and U.S. persons
reasonably believed to be outside the United States under a new Title VII of FISA.34 Section 702
provides procedures for targeting non-U.S. persons and is discussed in more detail below.
Scope of Acquisitions
Like its predecessor in the PAA, § 702 permits the AG and the DNI to jointly authorize targeting
of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, but is limited to targeting
non-U.S. persons. Once authorized, such acquisitions may last for periods of up to one year.
Under subsection 702(b) of FISA, such an acquisition is also subject to several limitations.
Specifically, an acquisition
• may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be
located in the United States;
• may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside
the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular,
known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
• may not intentionally target a U.S. person reasonably believed to be located
outside the United States;
• may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all
intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the
United States; and
• must be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.35
31 U.S. Department of Justice, Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by
the President, at 5, 17, Jan. 19, 2006, http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonnsalegalauthorities.pdf. See also CRS
Report R40888, Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence
Information, by Elizabeth B. Bazan and Jennifer K. Elsea.
32 S.Rept. 110-209, at 4. See also Letter from Attorney General Gonzales to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Patrick Leahy and Senator Arlen Specter (January 17, 2007).
33 P.L. 110-55, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1805a-1805c.
34 P.L. 110-261, § 101, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1881-1881g.
35 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(b).
Congressional Research Service
5
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
Acquisitions under § 702 are also geared towards electronic communications or electronically
stored information. This is because the certification supporting the acquisition, discussed in the
next section, requires the AG and DNI to attest that, among other things, the acquisition involves
obtaining information from or with the assistance of an electronic communication service
provider.36 This would appear to encompass acquisitions using methods such as wiretaps or
intercepting digital communications, but may also include accessing stored communications or
other data. Such a conclusion is also bolstered by the fact that the minimization procedures
required to be developed under § 702 reference the minimization standards applicable to physical
searches under Title III of FISA.37
Certification Procedure
Section 702 requires the joint AG/DNI authorization to be predicated on either the existence of a
court order approving of a joint certification submitted by the AG and DNI, or a determination by
the two officials that exigent circumstances exist.
The certification is not required to identify the individuals at whom such acquisitions would be
directed, but must attest, in part, that targeting procedures are in place that have been approved,
have been submitted for approval, or will be submitted with the certification for approval by the
FISC that are reasonably designed to ensure that an acquisition is limited to targeting persons
reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and to prevent the intentional
acquisition of any communication where the sender and all intended recipients are known at the
time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.38 The applicable targeting and
minimization procedures are subject to judicial review by the FISC, but the court is not required
to look behind the assertions made in the certification.
Generally, if the certification and targeting and minimization procedures meet the statutory
requirements and are consistent with the Fourth Amendment, a FISC order approving them will
be issued prior to implementation of the acquisition of the communications at issue. If the FISC
finds deficiencies in the certification, targeting procedures, or minimization procedures, the court
shall issue an order directing the government to, at the government’s election and to the extent
required by the court’s order, correct any such deficiency within 30 days or cease, or not begin,
the implementation of the authorization for which the certification was submitted.
Exigent Circumstances
In the absence of a court order described above, the AG and DNI may also authorize the targeting
of persons reasonably believed to be non-U.S. persons abroad if they determine that exigent
circumstances exist which would cause the loss or delay of important national security
intelligence. A certification supporting such acquisition is required to be submitted to the FISC as
soon as practicable, but no later than seven days after the determination of exigency has been
36 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(g)(2)(A)(vi).
37 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(e)(1) (referencing 50 U.S.C. § 1821(4)).
38 The certification must also attest that guidelines have been adopted to ensure that the specifically prohibited types of
surveillance activities listed in § 702(b), such as reverse targeting, are not conducted.
Congressional Research Service
6
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
made.39 Collection of information is permitted during the period before a certification is
submitted to the FISC.
Comparison with Prior Law
As discussed above, surveillance activities that meet the definition of electronic surveillance in
FISA must be authorized either under FISA or ECPA.40 Prior to the enactment of § 702, FISA
only permitted sustained electronic surveillance or access to electronically stored communications
after the issuance of a court order that was specific to the target. Since § 702 does not require an
individualized court order, the most dramatic effect of its enactment compared to the traditional
provisions of FISA has been in those situations in which § 702 encompasses activities that qualify
as electronic surveillance.
FISA defines several different categories of electronic surveillance, but only two are relevant to §
702.41 The first is the acquisition, in the United States, of international wire communications,
which are defined by FISA as communications where one endpoint of the captured
communication is in the United States.42 Consequently, § 702 provides a mechanism for the
domestic acquisition, without a court order, of communications that persons in the United States,
including citizens, would be a party to. Prior to the enactment of § 702, such acquisitions would
require a court order in all but emergency situations.43
The second category of electronic surveillance to which § 702 is applicable is the installation or
use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States to acquire
information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law
enforcement purposes.44 Examples of such surveillance would include things such as hidden
microphones and may also include access to stored communications.45 Section 702 may also
permit access to electronically stored communication that does not qualify as electronic
surveillance through the use of physical searches, so long as the information is acquired from or
with the assistance of an electronic communication service provider. As with interception of
international wire communications, such examples of electronic surveillance or access to stored
communications would likely have required an individualized court order under FISA as it
existed prior to § 702.
Legal Challenges
Upon enactment of Title VII, a number of organizations brought suit challenging the joint
authorization procedure for surveillance of non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be abroad.
39 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(g)(1)(B).
40 See discussion supra at “Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).”
41 The irrelevant categories of electronic surveillance deal with situations in which the target of the surveillance is a
U.S. person or present in the United States, both of which would disqualify the use of § 702.
42 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)(2).
43 See 50 U.S.C. § 1805(e)(1).
44 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)(4).
45 See David Kris and Douglas Wilson, NATIONAL SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS § 7:27 (2012)
(discussing application of definition of electronic surveillance to stored e-mail and voice mail).
Congressional Research Service
7
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
The suit alleged that this authority violated the targets’ Fourth Amendment rights.46 Although the
case was originally dismissed for lack of standing, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit ruled, in March of 2011, that the organizations had suffered sufficient injury,
based on the financial costs they incurred in order to avoid their reasonable fear of being subject
to surveillance under Title VII.47 The decision of the appeals court is currently pending review in
the United States Supreme Court.48
Procedures for Targeting U.S. Persons Abroad Using
Court Orders Under §§ 703 and 704
As discussed above, the FISA Amendments Act created separate procedures for targeting non-
U.S. persons and U.S. persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States.49 Sections 703
and 704, discussed in more detail below, address the targeting of U.S. persons abroad for
electronic surveillance and other types of acquisitions.
Requirement for Court Order
As an initial matter, § 704(a)(2) prohibits the intelligence community from targeting a U.S.
person who is reasonably believed to be abroad unless authorized by the FISC or another
provision of FISA.50 This prohibition only applies in circumstances where the target has a
reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required if the acquisition was
conducted in the United States for law enforcement purposes.51 Whether a “reasonable
expectation of privacy” exists depends upon whether an “individual manifested a subjective
expectation of privacy in [a] searched object” and whether “society is willing to recognize that
expectation as reasonable.”52 Although such a determination is inherently dependent upon the
particular circumstances in a given case, it is likely that activities like physical searches and
wiretaps conducted on foreign soil would require authorization from the FISC based on the
target’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Scope of Acquisitions
Having made the procedures of FISA compulsory in many foreign intelligence acquisitions in
which U.S. persons abroad are targeted, §§ 703 and 704 then each establish procedures to provide
the requisite FISC orders authorizing such acquisitions. The procedures under § 703 apply only to
electronic surveillance or the acquisition of stored electronic communications or data that would
46 But see In re Directives Pursuant to Section 105b of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 551 F.3d 1004, 1009-
1016 (U.S. Foreign Intell. Surveil Ct. Rev. 2008) (upholding similar joint authorization procedure under the Protect
America Act in the face of a Fourth Amendment challenge brought by telecommunications provider).
47 Amnesty Int’l v. Clapper, 638 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2011) reversing Amnesty Int'l United States v. McConnell, 646 F.
Supp. 2d 633 (S.D.N.Y., 2009).
48 Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l, 132 S.Ct. 2431 (2012).
49 P.L. 110-261, § 101, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1881-1881g.
50 50 U.S.C. § 1881c(a)(2).
51 Id.
52 Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 33 (2001) (citing California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 (1986)).
Congressional Research Service
8
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
traditionally require an order under FISA. The procedures under § 704 apply in all other
situations where the target has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be
required if the acquisition was conducted in the United States for law enforcement purposes.53
However, because the requirements of § 704 are less stringent than § 703, the statute prohibits the
use of the former when the procedures of the latter would apply.
Procedures
The judicial procedures under §§ 703 and 704 generally follow the same structure used by the
procedures that already existed in FISA to obtain a court order authorizing electronic surveillance
or physical searches of U.S. persons within the United States. The government must submit an
application for surveillance that identifies the target and the facts and circumstances relied upon
that would justify the belief that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power,
which the FISC must find to be supported by probable cause.54 Because Title VII is intended to
address targets that are outside of the United States, the court must also find that probable cause
to believe that this geographical limitation has been met.55
Both §§ 703 and 704 also provide authority for short-term acquisitions if the AG reasonably
determines that an emergency situation exists and there is insufficient time to obtain a court
order.56 Such emergency acquisitions must be followed up with a formal application within seven
days.57
Comparison of §§ 703 and 704
Although they are similar, the procedures under §§ 703 and 704 are not identical to each other.
Less specificity is generally required of the information in the application submitted under § 704.
Section 704 also does not require a statement that the information sought cannot be obtained by
normal investigative means. Section 704 also only requires the minimization procedures to
address dissemination of acquired information.58 In contrast, § 703 also requires the minimization
procedures to address the acquisition and retention of information.
Comparison with Prior Law
In at least two important ways, the standard that must be met under §§ 703 and 704 before the
FISC will issue an order authorizing an acquisition is less stringent than the standard that has
been traditionally required under FISA.
First, FISA traditionally required an application to identify the facilities that will be searched or
subject to electronic surveillance, and to demonstrate that those facilities are being used, or are
about to be used, by the target. Second, FISA traditionally only permitted U.S. persons to be
53 Id.
54 50 U.S.C. §§ 1881b(b)-(c), 1881c(b)-(c).
55 Id.
56 50 U.S.C. §§ 1881b(d), 1881c(d).
57 Id.
58 50 U.S.C. § 1881c(c)(1)(C).
Congressional Research Service
9
Reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act
targeted if they are also linked to international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.59
Neither of these is required under §§ 703 or 704.
Because all electronic surveillance was subject to FISA’s standards under prior law, and § 703
only applies to stored data if FISA would have traditionally required an order, it may be fair to
characterize § 703 simply as a relaxation of FISA’s requirements when the target is a U.S. person
abroad.
However, the situation is different when considering the effect of § 704 on prior law. The general
prohibition embodied in § 704 requiring a court order supported by probable cause when
targeting U.S. persons abroad expands the scope of FISA to areas that were previously beyond its
scope. For example, targeting the international communications of a U.S. person located abroad
was generally not considered electronic surveillance if the acquisition did not occur on U.S. soil.
Therefore, while no court order would have been traditionally required under FISA, the addition
of § 704 brings that conduct within the ambit of the statute.
Legislative Activity in the 112th Congress
At least two bills in the 112th Congress would extend Title VII of FISA beyond its current
expiration date of December 31, 2012. H.R. 5949, the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization
Act of 2012, was passed by the House of Representatives on September 12, 2012, and would
extend Title VII until December 31, 2017. In the Senate, S. 3276, the FAA Sunsets Extension Act
of 2012, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, would extend Title VII until June 1, 2015, in
order to synchronize its reauthorization cycle with that of other temporary provisions of FISA.
Author Contact Information
Edward C. Liu
Legislative Attorney
eliu@crs.loc.gov, 7-9166
59 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b).
Congressional Research Service
10