The secretive federal court that oversees the nation’s spies is laying the groundwork for temporarily reauthorizing the National Security Agency’s (NSA) sweeping collection of U.S. phone records.
In an order released on Friday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said that a brief lapse in some Patriot Act provisions would not bar the court from renewing the NSA's powers. Although the court asserted its ability to renew the controversial NSA program, it has yet to issue an order giving a green light to the spy agency.
The court also decided that it doesn’t need the advice of a new expert panel, in its first ever opportunity to use the friend-of-the-court analysis.
Passage of the law, however, came after Sen. Rand PaulRand PaulDestructive 'fat cat' tax law a complete flop. It's time to repeal it. Trump must take action in Macedonia to fix damage done by Obama and Clinton We can put America first by preventing public health disasters MORE (R-Ky.) forced a two-day lapse of parts of the Patriot Act, drawing attention to the GOP presidential candidate's opposition to NSA powers and dealing a humiliating setback for Majority Leader Mitch McConnellMitch McConnellOvernight Finance: Inside Trump's tax plan | White House mulls order pulling out of NAFTA | New fight over Dodd-Frank begins Dem rep: Trump's tax plan as believable as 'magic, unicorns or Batman' GOP leaders, top tax writers: Trump principles will be 'critical guideposts' MORE (R-Ky.), who has endorsed his White House bid.
Before temporarily renewing the NSA’s powers, as the Obama administration urged the court to do this month, the judges first need to decide whether that temporary lapse forced any permanent changes in the law.
In the Friday order, Judge F. Dennis Saylor wrote that it “has the authority to grant the applications and issue the requested orders.”
While it has yet to formally authorize the NSA's collection of phone metadata, most analysts expect that decision to be forthcoming.
To reach its conclusion, the court declared that it did not need the advice of a new expert panel created to weigh in on “novel or significant interpretation[s] of the law.”
That decision is not particularly surprising, but it is noteworthy because it was the first chance for the court to turn to the new panel. Without the input of the expert panel, the court only hears arguments from the government.