Chief Justice John Roberts Appointed Every Judge on the FISA Court

Is that too much power for one person?

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts participates in the dedication of the Newseum in Washington on April 11, 2008.     (UPI Photo/Roger L. Wollenberg)
National Journal
Garrett Epps, The Atlanic
Aug. 12, 2013, 7:02 a.m.

John Roberts has a way of in­sert­ing him­self in­to al­most every polit­ic­al set­ting. He up­staged Barack Obama at his first in­aug­ur­a­tion; he made his the most im­port­ant single vote cast in the 2012 elec­tion; he has upen­ded 2014 polit­ics with his opin­ion gut­ting the Vot­ing Act. Now it turns out he has as­sumed a key role in the war on ter­ror.

So it seems en­tirely reas­on­able for The New York Times‘s Linda Green­house to sug­gest that “we have giv­en the chief justice — any chief justice, not just this one — too much to do.”



Latest Polit­ics Posts:
Load­ing feed…

The ques­tion is be­ing raised now be­cause re­cent leaks give us a dis­turb­ing look in­to the se­cret­ive For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court. The chief justice se­lects the 11 dis­trict judges who serve on this court; his dis­cre­tion is sub­ject only to a few lim­its: the judges must come from at least sev­en ap­peals-court cir­cuits, one must be a dis­trict judge of the Dis­trict of Columbia, and no few­er than three must live with­in 20 miles of D.C.

The FISA pan­el was ori­gin­ally con­ceived as simply a mech­an­ism to grant war­rants for sur­veil­lance — the equi­val­ent of a ma­gis­trate who looks at an af­fi­davit from a po­lice of­ficer and then or­ders a search or seizure. It’s an im­port­ant func­tion, but pretty ped­es­tri­an (or as law­yers like to say, “min­is­teri­al”).

Since 2007 or so, though, the FISA Court has bulked up like A-Rod. The New York Times re­vealed that it has de­veloped a com­plex case law in­ter­pret­ing the Sur­veil­lance Act, the Fourth Amend­ment, and its own jur­is­dic­tion. That case law — like the or­ders the Court is­sues, like the briefs the gov­ern­ment files, and like the leg­al opin­ions from which those briefs flow — are, of course, secret.

An en­tire shad­ow Con­sti­tu­tion may be grow­ing up, parsed by a court ap­poin­ted by John Roberts. That secret growth seems more alarm­ing be­cause of re­ports that the chief justice’s picks for the secret court have been skewed to­ward the Re­pub­lic­an side of the bench.

The chief ap­points the mem­bers of many spe­cial­ized ju­di­cial pan­els. But the FISA Court has morph­ed in­to a very power­ful in­sti­tu­tion. Per­haps it’s time to change the way it is con­sti­tuted.

Pro­fess­or Steph­en Vladeck, a sep­ar­a­tion-of-powers spe­cial­ist who teaches at Amer­ic­an Uni­versity School of Law, ar­gues that when FISA was passed it made sense to give the power of ap­point­ment to the chief justice — but that “what the FISA Court does has changed over time.” The de­gree of pro­gram­mat­ic re­spons­ib­il­ity it has taken on, he says, may be un­pre­ced­en­ted.

For that reas­on, it may make sense to spread the re­spons­ib­il­ity for the makeup of the FISA courts. Vladeck sug­gests either cre­at­ing a stand-alone spe­cial­ized FISA Court, ap­poin­ted by the pres­id­ent and con­firmed by the Sen­ate, or con­fin­ing the present FISA Court to war­rant ap­prov­al, with a trans­fer of the more com­plex over­sight of sur­veil­lance pro­grams to pan­els of an ex­ist­ing court, per­haps one such as the D.C. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals, which has ex­per­i­ence in the in­tric­a­cies of ad­min­is­trat­ive law.

Should the chief keep the ap­point­ment power? Per­haps we can learn from re­cent his­tory. In 1983, Chief Justice War­ren Bur­ger lob­bied Con­gress to cre­ate a new na­tion­al Court of Ap­peals, made up of already-con­firmed sit­ting judges. In dif­fer­ent pro­pos­als, the power of ap­point­ment would either be held by the chief alone, or by the Su­preme Court as a whole.

Of­fi­cials at the Re­agan White House had little use for the idea. Ap­point­ment by the chief justice, or by the Court as a whole, one wrote, “con­sti­tutes an un­pre­ced­en­ted in­fringe­ment on the pres­id­ent’s ap­point­ment power.” Ap­point­ment by the chief alone would be likely to pro­duce a solidly con­ser­vat­ive court, but “lib­er­al mem­bers of Con­gress, the courts, and the bar are likely to ob­ject.” Even worse, if Demo­crat­ic nom­in­ees were named, they might re­verse the judg­ments of Re­agan ap­pointees on the lower courts.

“[T]he new court would be qual­it­at­ively dif­fer­ent” than spe­cial­ized pan­els ap­poin­ted by the chief justice, this Re­agan of­fi­cial wrote, “and its mem­bers would have sig­ni­fic­antly great powers than reg­u­lar cir­cuit judges.” If the pro­ject went for­ward, “we should scru­pu­lously guard the pres­id­ent’s ap­point­ment powers.”

It was a shrewd as­sess­ment. The power to name judges to any im­port­ant court is a ma­jor one, one that in­volves the pres­id­ent’s power, the ap­pear­ance of in­teg­rity and im­par­ti­al­ity on the na­tion’s courts, and the cru­cial is­sue of which judges get the last word on im­port­ant ques­tions.

The au­thor of those memos was 28 years old when he op­posed the new court. Today he is the chief justice of the United States.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
4 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×