Opinion, In re [REDACTED] Non-U.S. Persons

Holding, Findings, and Matters of Law

The Court granted a Verified Application, finding probable cause to believe the targets are agents of a foreign power and that each of the facilities at which electronic surveillance is direcuted is being used or about to be used by the targets. Id. at 1. The Court clarified that the term “facilities” should be given its ordinary, broader meaning, and not the narrower interpretation advanced by amicus. Id. at 6. The Court found that the term was understood by Congress to “denote means used to facilitate an action or process.” Id. at 7. As the statutory language (§§ 1804(a)(3)(B), 1805(a)(2)(B)) combine “facilities” with “places,” these terms are understood to refer to “any type of thing at which electronic surveillance can be directed, not to limit the types of things at which surveillance may be directed.” Id. at 8. The Court also reiterated that “the only required nexus between a facility at which surveillance will be directed and any person is probable cause to believe that the facility is being used or about to be used by a foreign power or an agent of foreign power.” Id. at 11. The Court also concludes that § 1805(a)(2)(B) does not require probable cause to believe that all [facilities] which surveillance will be directed, without exception, are being used or about to be used by a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. Rather, it suffices if there is probable cause to believe that each [facility] which surveillance will be directed is being used or about to be used by a [foreign power or agent of a foreign power]. See id. at 20-21.