1.0American Civil Liberties UnionAmerican Civil Liberties Unionrich600338<blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="2EvLyJo0Wl"><a href="/documents/fisc-memorandum-opinion-re-redacted">FISC Memorandum Opinion In Re: [Redacted]</a></blockquote><iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="/documents/fisc-memorandum-opinion-re-redacted/embed#?secret=2EvLyJo0Wl" width="600" height="338" title="“FISC Memorandum Opinion In Re: [Redacted]” — American Civil Liberties Union" data-secret="2EvLyJo0Wl" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"></iframe><script type="text/javascript"> /* <![CDATA[ */ /*! This file is auto-generated */ !function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document); /* ]]> */ </script> This document is a Memorandum Opinion from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The case name is redacted, but the purpose of the memorandum was to consider "whether the appointment of an amicus curiae is appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case." The Court rules in the negative.