Memorandum Opinion and Order

UNITED ST A TES
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT
Washington, D.C.
IN RE: APPLICATION OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION FOR AN ORDER
REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF
TANGIBLE THINGS
Docket No. BR 13-158
ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompan ying Memorandum Opinion , it hereby is
ORDERED that the Motion to Establish a Public Briefing Schedule Including the Filings of
Briefs by Amici Curia e, for Leave for the Center for National Security Studies to File an Amicus
Curiae Brief, and a Suggestion for Hearing En Banc is GRANTED IN PART. The Center for
National Security Studies may file an amicus curiae brief on why Section 501 of the FISA, 50
U.S.C. § 1861 , does not authorize the collection of telephony metadata records in bulk. All other
relief requested by the Center for National Security Studies is DENIED .
Signed 	I ~ b e £ J
Date
3 	.D;5 	eM<Eastern Time
Time
J!J:	31~~~t~J_ '
Judge , United States Foreign
lntelligence Surveillance Court

UNITED STATES
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT
Washington, D.C.
IN RE: APPLICATION OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION FOR AN ORDER
REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF
TANG IBLE THINGS
Docket No. BR 13-158
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Center for National Security Studies ("the Center ") has filed a Motion to Establish a
Public Briefing Schedule Including the Filings of Briefs by Amici Curia e, for Leave for the
Center for National Security Studies to File an Amicus Curiae Brief, and a Suggestion for
Hearing En Banc, in connection with the government ' s collection of telephony metadata records
in bulk. The motion requests entry of an order permitting the Center to file an amicus curiae
brief and also requests that the Court: (1) reconsider the ex pa rt e order that authorized the
collection of bulk telephony metadata as of October 11 , 2013 , and establish procedures for the
submission of legal briefs addressing the request for reconsideration ; (2) establish a docket for
the United States' next application for an order authorizing the collection of bulk telephony
metadata; (3) require the United States to file a public legal brief or declassify the current
arguments setting forth the legality of bulk telephony metadata collection and establish a briefing
schedule for the submission of amicus curiae briefs responding to the United States' legal brief
or declassified arguments ; and (4) order a hearing en bane to consider the United States' request
for authorization of bulk telephony metadata collection. Mot. ii 5.

Pursuant to the Court's October 18, 2013 order, the United States filed a response to the
Center's motion. Although the United States does not contest the proposition that the Court has
the inherent authority to grant requests to file amicus curiae briefs, the United States takes no
position on whether the Court should exercise that authority with respect to the Center's request.
The United States opposes, however, the filing and docketing of amicus curiae briefs in ex parte
proceedings pursuant to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ('·FISA") § 50 I (f), 50 U.S.C.
§ 1861 (f) and argues that an "amicus brief should be accepted in a miscellaneous docket rather
than the docket of a classified application ." United States' Opp'n Br. at 8-9, 10 n.4. The United
States opposes the Center's request for all other relief.
The Court will grant the motion only to the extent that the Court will allow the movant to
file an amicus curiae brief on "why Section 50 I of the FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1861 , does not
authorize" the collection of telephony metadata records in bulk. Mot. ~ 1. The Court will deny
all other relief requested by the movant.
Although there is no statute or rule applicable to this Court that specifically addresses
whether an amicus curiae may be permitted to file a legal brief, 1 federal district courts possess
the inherent authority to appoint amici curiae and permit the filing of briefs by them. 2 See, e.g.,
Authors Guild, Inc. v. I-IathiTrust, 902 F. Supp. 2d 445, 447 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Jin v. Ministry
of State Sec., 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 136-37 (D.D.C. 2008); Martinez v. Capital Cities/ ABC-
1 Neither the Rules of Procedure for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ("FISC")
nor the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1885c, as
amended, provide for the filing of legal briefs by an amicus curiae. Although the FISC may
refer to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
resolve issues not addressed by the FISC Rules, see FISC Rule P. 1, those rules also do not
address the filing of amicus curiae briefs.
2 Although this Court is not a district court, it possesses similar inherent authority, except
to the extent it is limited by FISA. See In re Motion for Release of Court Records, 526 F. Supp.
2d 484, 486-87 (FISA Ct. 2007); cf. 50 U.S.C. § l 803(g).
-2-

WPVI, 909 F. Supp. 283, 286 (E.D. Pa. 1995). The decision to allow participation of an amicus
curiae, and the extent of that participation, is within the sound discretion of the district court.
See Liberty Res., Inc. v. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 395 F. Supp. 2d 206, 210 (E.D. Pa. 2009);
Jin , 557 F. Supp. 2d at 136-37; Cmty. Ass'n for Restoration ofEnv't (CARE) v. DeRuyter Bros.
Dairy, 54 F. Supp. 2d 974 , 975 (E.D. Wash. 1999); 4 Am. Jur. 2d Amicus Curiae§ 1 (2013).
The traditional role of an amicus curiae is to act as a "frie nd of the court," whose purpose
is to provide impartial information to the court on a question of law about which there is doubt,
particularly in matters of public interest. Neonatology Assoc., P.A. v. C.I.R., 293 F.3d 128, 131
(3d Cir. 2002); United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143 , 164 (6th Cir. 1991); Miller-Wohl Co.,
Inc. v. Comm'r of Labor and Indus., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). An amicus curiae
traditionally presents a perspective different from that of the litigants or provides information to
the court that might otherwise escape its attention. Miller-Wohl Co., Inc., 694 F.2d at 204; 4
Am. Jur. 2d Amicus Curiae§§ 1, 6 (2013).
Some courts have expanded the role of the amicus curiae from a purel y impartial advisor
to more of an adversarial or partisan participant. See Neonatology Assoc., P.A. , 293 F.3d at 131
(holding that an amicus curiae need not be disinterested or impartial) ; Ryan v. Commodity
Futures Trading Comm'n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997) (Posner, C.J., in chambers)
(noting that the "vas t majority of amicus curiae briefs are filed by allies of litigants" and that ''an
adversary role of an amicus curiae has become accepted," but finding that this practice is "an
abuse"); Funbus Sys., Inc. v. California Pub. Util. Comm'n, 801 F.2d 1120, 1124-25 (9th Cir.
1986) (holding that an amicus curiae need not be disinterested) ; Samuel Krislov, The Amicus
Curiae Brief: from Friendship to Advocacy, 72 Yale L.J. 694 ( 1963 ).
-3-

Regardless of whether the role of an amicus curiae is to act as an impartial advisor or as
an advocate, most courts have recognized that the role of an amicus curiae is limited, and does
not rise to the level of a party to the litigation. See, e.g. , Upper Blackstone Water Pollution
Abatement Dist. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 690 F.3d 9, 29 n.25 (1st Cir. 2012); In re
Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 1233 , 1249 n.34 (11th Cir. 2006); Cohen v. Empire
Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 176 F.3d 35 , 41 (2d Cir. 1999); Miller-Wohl Co., Inc. , 694 F.2d at
204; City of Winter Haven v. Gillespie, 84 F.2d 285 , 287 (5th Cir. 1936).
For example, in Un it ed States v. Michigan, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit concluded that an amicus curiae lacks standing "to exercise any litigating rights
equal to a named party/real party in interest .... " 940 F.2d 143 , 166 (6th Cir. 1991). In that
case, the district court had granted the amicus curiae rights of a litigating party, such as the right
to file pleadings, conduct discovery, initiate contempt proceedings, and file motions. Id. at 163.
On review, the Sixth Circuit found that the district court had allowed a nonparty to circumvent
the traditional processes for becoming a named party by giving it " litigating amicus curiae"
status. ~at 164. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court' s expansion of the role of the
amicus curiae, finding that giving an amicus curiae the powers of a named party would " convert
the trial court into a free-wheeling forum of competing special interest groups capable" of
interfering with the interests of the parties and the administration of justice. Id. at 165.
A nonparty cannot circumvent Article m standing requirements, and gain control over a
case equal to that of a real party of interest, by filing an amicus curiae brief. Rio Grande
Pipeline Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm ' n, 178 F.3d 533 , 539 (D.C. Cir. 1999). A court
has discretion to set limits on an amicus curiae consistent with that principle. See, e.g. , Briggs v.
-4-

United States, 597 A.2d 370 , 374-75 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Cobell v. 	orton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62
(D.D . C. 2003); 4 Am . Jur. 2d Amicus Curiae§ 6 (2013) .
The Court will apply these principles relating to the filing of amicus curiae briefs within
the context of the statutory provisions that set out the ex pa rte and classified nature of
proceedings under the FISA. Section 501 of FISA , as amended by Section 215 of the USA
PA TRI OT Act in 2001, permits the Federal Bureau of Investigation (" FBI'') to apply to this
Court "for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records,
papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation ... to protect against international
terrorism. " FISA § 50l(a)(l) , 50 U .S.C. § 186l(a)(l). If the application meets the statutory
requirements, FISA requires that the Court "shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as
modified, approving the release of tangible things. " FISA § 501(c)(l) , 50 U.S.C. § 186l(c)(l).
As in all matters, FISA directs that proceedings be "conducted as expeditiously as possible,"
with records "maintained under [appropriate] security measures. " FISA § 103(c), 50 U.S.C. §
l 803(c) .
The Court will exercise its discretion to allow the Center to file an amicus curiae brief on
the issue requested by the Center -- whether Section 1861 authorizes the collection of telephony
metadata records in bulk. The brief will be filed in a miscellaneous docket that can be accessed
by any judge of the Court when considering an application for such collection under Section
1861 in the future. The brief shall contain a table of contents with page references and a table of
authorities with references to the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited, be no more
than 15 pages in length excluding signature pages and any certificates of service, and shall
otherwise comply with any relevant provisions contained in FISC Rule P. 7 with respect to form
and filing.
-5-

Although the Court could require the Center to file a motion to file an amicus brief in
accordance with the strictures of Fed. R. App . P . 29 ,3 the 	ourt in this particular case will allow
the Center to file the requested brief without filing an additional motion. According to Fed. R.
App . P. 29, a court may grant leave for a nonparty to file an amicus curiae brief upon motion by
the amicus curiae . Such a motion must include a copy of the proposed amicus brief and must
state "the movant's interest," and " the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and why the
matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case. " Fed. R . App. P. 29(b). Such a
motion would be repetitive of the briefing currently before the court, and is therefore
unnecessary under these particular circumstances.
In its reply memorandum , the Center has described the issues that will be addressed by
the Center' s amicus brief. The Center' s amicus brief will argue that (1) the collection of bulk
telephony metadata does not fit within the structure and limitations of Section 1861 and FISA as
a whole; (2) the collection of bulk telephony metadata does not meet the " relevance" standard of
Section 1861 , as adopted in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of2005;
and (3) Congress's extension of the 	unset of 	ection 1861 from May 2011 to June 2015 did not
enact the FISC ' s interpretation of 	ection 1861. The Court therefore finds that, in light of the
information provided in the Center's reply brief, the Center has demonstrated the Center's
interest and the contents of and reasons for its amicus curiae brief.
The other relief requested by the Center goes well beyond the appropriate limits of an
amicus curiae, especially in an ex parte proceeding 	uch as the one here. An amicus curiae has
no standing to move for reconsideration of a decision nor does the Center have standing to seek
3 Federal district courts often refer to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure for guidance as to the filing of amicus curiae briefs. 	ee, e.g. United States v.
Alkaabi, 223 F. Supp. 2d 583 , 592 (D.N.J. 2002) ; United 	tates v. Gotti , 755 F. Supp. 1157,
1158 (E.D.N.Y. 1991).
-6-

en bane review by the Court. See FISC Rule P. 46. Congress has mandated that the Court's
review of a Section 1861 application be ex pa rte. In view of that mandate, the Center will not
have access to the government's application or other docket proceedings. As evidenced by the
preview of the Center ' s intended arguments in its reply brief, information already made available
to the public, including opinions of this Court, provides sufficient context for the Center to brief
the issue specified herein.
Signed _j_	~-'-'f~f_	S/_/_	3___	3_:O_'l~f~	· fl_. Eastern Time
Date 	Time
-7-
Z?Jv'AJ!~/Jdt/Jf/~Judge, United States Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court