Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga
In a case over FBI surveillance and the state secrets privilege, the Court overturned the Ninth Circuit's ruling and held that FISA does not override the state secrets defense.· AI-written
142 S. Ct. 1051 · No. 20-828 · 2021 term · Roberts Court
Decided Mar 4, 2022 · argued Nov 8, 2021
Civil rights · Miscellaneous civil rights
Majority opinion: Samuel Alito
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed and remanded. Federal Bureau of Investigation won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Federal Bureau of Investigation was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, 595 U.S. 344 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the use of law enforcement surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the state secrets privilege defense. The case stems from a 2011 class action lawsuit filed against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) related to one of its surveillance operations. In August 2012, the district court dismissed the case on the basis of the FBI's invocation of state secrets privilege. The Ninth Circuit overturned this ruling in part in 2019, ruling that FISA precluded the defendants from invoking the state secrets defense. However, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in a unanimous decision in March 2022, stating that FISA does not override the state secrets defense.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2021 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Samuel AlitoWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Federal Bureau of InvestigationFederal Bureau of Investigation or Director
- Respondent
- FazagaInjured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Mar 4, 2022DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. Federal Bureau of Investigation won.
- Nov 8, 2021ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Central U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
3 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous civil rights, newest first.
- Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic145 S. Ct. 2219Jun 26, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 2219Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Village of Willowbrook, et al. v. Grace Olech528 U.S. 562Feb 23, 2000 · 528 U.S. 562Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Jones, Warden, Stone Mountain Correctional Institution v. Helms452 U.S. 412Jun 15, 1981 · 452 U.S. 412Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.