FISA Court Reform Act of 2013
Latest action. Referred to the subcommitteeA smaller panel inside a standing committee with jurisdiction over a slice of its subject matter. Most hearings and the first markup usually happen here.Read the full definition (opens a new tab) on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
FISA Court Reform Act of 2013 - Establishes within the judicial branch an Office of the Constitutional Advocate to protect individual rights by advocating before courts and judges of the petition review pool established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) in support of legal interpretations that minimize the scope of surveillance and the extent of data collection and retention.
Directs the Chief Justice to appoint a Constitutional Advocate to serve as the head of such Office from a list of candidates submitted by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
Requires the Advocate to: (1) review each application to the FISA Court by the Attorney General (DOJ) and each decision of the FISA Court, the petition review pool (FISA Court judges designated to review petitions challenging certain FISA production orders, nondisclosure orders, and targeting directives delivered to electronic communication service providers), or the FISA Court of Review; and (2) participate in proceedings before the FISA Court when appointed to participate by such Court.
Requires the Advocate to consider requests for assistance from electronic communication service providers served with an order, certification, or directive compelling the provider to assist the government or release customer information.
Authorizes the Advocate to participate in petition review proceedings when participation is requested by a party to the proceeding or the petition review pool.
Permits the Advocate to request to participate in such proceedings, request reconsideration of FISA Court decisions, and appeal or seek review of FISA Court, petition review pool, or FISA Court of Review decisions.
Directs such Courts and the petition review pool to promulgate rules to provide the public with information sufficient to allow interested parties to participate as amicus curiae.
Authorizes the Advocate to seek a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the FISA Court of Review.
Requires the Attorney General to publicly disclose: (1) all decisions issued by the FISA Court, the petition review pool, or the FISA Court of Review after July 10, 2003, that include a significant construction or interpretation of law; (2) any decision of the FISA Court or petition review pool appealed by the Advocate; and (3) any FISA Court of Review decision issued after an appeal by the Advocate. Provides for the release of as much information regarding the facts and analysis in such decisions as is consistent with legitimate national security concerns.
The summary continues for 1 more paragraph. Read it in full on Congress.gov
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Introduced in House" stage on October 1, 2013. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?
4 steps remain before this bill could become law.
The record's latest action, on October 15, 2013: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
- Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
- Passage by the House
- Passage by the Senate
- The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?
Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.
In the 113th Congress (2013-14), 296 of the 9,091 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 3.3 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.
This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.
Has anyone actually voted on it?
No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.
A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.
Who is behind it?
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced it on October 1, 2013, and 3 members have since signed on as cosponsors.
They come from both major parties: 2 Democrats, 1 Republican.
Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.
How long has it been in play?
It was introduced on October 1, 2013, 4727 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 4713 days ago, on October 15, 2013.
Measures do not carry over. Anything the 113th Congress has not finished by January 3, 2015 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.
Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.
Vote history
- HouseIn committee, no floor vote yet
- SenateAwaits House passage
- PresidentAwaits both chambers