Whether the district court's in camera, ex parte review of the materials, application, and surveillance order without permitting disclosure or participation by defense counsel violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?

QUESTION PRESENTED Much of the evidence used to convict petitioner Nader Elhuzayel resulted from electronic surveillance authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”). Petitioner moved to suppress this evidence on the ground that the surveillance order had been obtained illegally and was not supported by probable cause; petitioner also moved for disclosure of the order and application. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the order had been obtained lawfully and that petitioner was not entitled to disclosure of the order or the government submissions in support of the order. The question presented is: Whether the district court’s in camera, ex parte review of the materials, application, and surveillance order without permitting disclosure or participation by defense counsel violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment? i