Access to Justice

RELEASE: CAC Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling in FBI v. Fazaga

WASHINGTON – Following the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, a case in which the Court considered whether allegations of unlawful government surveillance may be adjudicated using procedures in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act instead of being dismissed as a result of the state secrets privilege, Constitutional Accountability Center Senior Appellate Counsel Brian Frazelle issued the following reaction:

While we are disappointed that the Court did not recognize that FISA displaces the state secrets privilege, we’re relieved that the Court stopped there, leaving other questions open in a way that may allow for accountability in this and other cases. In particular, the government argued that the state secrets privilege has a constitutional foundation in the president’s duties under Article II. If accepted, that position could make it harder for Congress and the courts to rein in future abuses of the privilege. But the Court avoided resolving the issue, indicating that it remains an open question whether the privilege has any basis in the Constitution or is instead (as we showed in our brief) entirely a product of the common law.

#

Resources:

CAC case page in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/federal-bureau-of-investigation-v-fazaga/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
March 4, 2026

CAC Release: Unanimous Supreme Court Rejects State-Affiliated Corporation’s Claim of Immunity from Suit

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Galette v. New Jersey...
By: Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: In Disappointing Sixth Amendment Decision, the Supreme Court Made Clear the Limits of Its Decision

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Villarreal v. Texas, a...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Access to Justice
February 12, 2026

February Newsletter: CAC Supports Everyday Americans Fighting for Their Day in Court

At every level of our judicial system, a complex set of doctrines determines what cases...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas

In United States ex rel. Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas, the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Flowers Foods v. Brock

In Flowers Foods v. Brock, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Federal Arbitration Act exempts from arbitration “last-mile” delivery drivers who transport goods between two points in the same state to their final destinations,...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System

In T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine requires dismissal of a request for relief from a state-court decision that did not reach the state’s highest...