Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga
The Facts
Muslim residents of Southern California were surveilled by an FBI informant as part of a counterterrorism program. They filed suit under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The government invoked the state secrets privilege to resist disclosure of the surveillance program. The Ninth Circuit allowed certain proceedings to continue under the state secrets doctrine outside FISA's framework.
The Application
The residents' suit under FISA brought the case within a statutory regime that Congress created specifically to address surveillance disputes with built-in judicial review protections. The government's invocation of the common law state secrets privilege sought to avoid these protections by barring disclosure entirely, presenting a direct conflict between the statutory mechanism and the traditional doctrine. The Court applied the principle that when Congress enacts a specific statutory scheme for handling sensitive information in the relevant context, that scheme displaces the more general common law rule, and thus FISA's in camera review procedures must substitute for the blanket privilege. As a result, the district court could not dismiss the case based on the government's state secrets assertion but instead had to conduct FISA's prescribed ex parte judicial examination of the surveillance materials.
The Conclusion
**FBI v. Fazaga held that FISA's specialized evidentiary procedures must be used in FISA cases and displace the common law state secrets privilege to the extent of any conflict.** The ruling requires courts to engage in FISA's prescribed in camera review rather than simply dismissing cases at the government's invocation of state secrets, providing some judicial check on surveillance program secrecy.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Muslim residents subjected to FBI surveillance brought claims under FISA seeking to require disclosure of the surveillance program despite the government's state secrets privilege assertion. The Supreme Court held 6-3 that FISA's procedures for handling privileged surveillance information govern cases under FISA rather than the common law state secrets privilege, requiring district courts to use FISA's in camera review mechanism.
Facts
Muslim residents of Southern California were surveilled by an FBI informant as part of a counterterrorism program. They filed suit under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The government invoked the state secrets privilege to resist disclosure of the surveillance program. The Ninth Circuit allowed certain proceedings to continue under the state secrets doctrine outside FISA's framework.
Issue
Whether FISA's procedures for in camera, ex parte review of surveillance information displace the common law state secrets privilege in cases arising under FISA.
Rule
When Congress creates a specific statutory scheme for handling sensitive surveillance information in litigation, that scheme governs rather than the common law state secrets doctrine, to the extent the two conflict. FISA's procedures, which allow in camera judicial review of surveillance materials, must be applied in FISA cases before courts apply the more absolute common law privilege.
Analysis
The residents' suit under FISA brought the case within a statutory regime that Congress created specifically to address surveillance disputes with built-in judicial review protections. The government's invocation of the common law state secrets privilege sought to avoid these protections by barring disclosure entirely, presenting a direct conflict between the statutory mechanism and the traditional doctrine. The Court applied the principle that when Congress enacts a specific statutory scheme for handling sensitive information in the relevant context, that scheme displaces the more general common law rule, and thus FISA's in camera review procedures must substitute for the blanket privilege. As a result, the district court could not dismiss the case based on the government's state secrets assertion but instead had to conduct FISA's prescribed ex parte judicial examination of the surveillance materials.
Conclusion
**FBI v. Fazaga held that FISA's specialized evidentiary procedures must be used in FISA cases and displace the common law state secrets privilege to the extent of any conflict.** The ruling requires courts to engage in FISA's prescribed in camera review rather than simply dismissing cases at the government's invocation of state secrets, providing some judicial check on surveillance program secrecy.
Notes
OT2021. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support