Whether the FISC has jurisdiction to consider a motion asserting a qualified public right of access to its significant opinions

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Congress created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) in 1978 to oversee electronic surveillance conducted for foreign intelligence purposes. The FISC’s role was originally narrow, but today, as a result of legislative changes and new technology, the court evaluates broad programs of surveillance that can have profound implications for Americans’ privacy, expressive, and associational rights. The court’s opinions frequently include significant interpretations of statutory and constitutional law. Petitioner filed motions with the FISC asserting that the First Amendment provides a qualified right of public access to FISC opinions containing significant legal analysis—even if portions of the published opinions must be redacted. The FISC , rejected one of these motions on the merits. Subsequently, in this case, the FISC and the Foreign : Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (““FISCR”) both held that they lack jurisdiction even to rule on Petitioner’s constitutional claim. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the FISC, like other Article III courts, has jurisdiction to consider a motion asserting that : the First Amendment provides a qualified public right of access to the court’s significant opinions, and whether the FISCR has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the denial of such a motion. 2. Whether the First Amendment provides a qualified right of public access to the FISC’s significant opinions. i