> what needs to happen is for Congress (which retains the authority to abolish FISC entirely) to establish some kind of bright-line rule about the limits of "fo

> what needs to happen is for Congress (which retains the authority to abolish FISC entirely) to establish some kind of bright-line rule about the limits of "foreign" surveillance So, I agree. And as much as I find many/most aspects of the FISC to be deeply problematic, the existence of the FISC has in the past few days been a boon (probably for the first time that I am aware). Basically, state secrets claims were rejected because the FISA court's existence displaces such claims. (This is an oversimplified read, and IANAL.) From the opinion (Do I get to say "FTFO" for the first time ever?) [1]: > "The Jewel Plaintiffs move for partial summary adjudication seeking to have the Court reject the Defendants’ state secret defense by arguing that Congress has displaced the state secretes privilege in this action by the statutory procedure prescribed by 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”)." > "... the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ statutory claims on the basis of sovereign immunity" 1 = http://ia600508.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.cand.207206/gov.uscourts.cand.207206.148.0.pdf http://ia600508.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.cand.20...