A federal court in New York has ruled that government agencies must obtain a warrant before searching surveillance databases for information about U.S. residents, marking a major shift in how intelligence data can be accessed.
Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall of the Eastern District of New York issued the landmark decision in the case of Agron Hasbajrami, who was arrested in 2011 on charges of attempting to support a terrorist organization. The case gained attention after it was revealed that federal agents had accessed evidence against Hasbajrami through warrantless searches of communications collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Under Section 702 of FISA, federal agencies can collect vast amounts of communications through backdoor access to major tech companies like Google, Meta, and Apple without demonstrating probable cause. While the law aims to minimize collection of U.S. persons' data, various loopholes exist.
The government had previously claimed it could search these stored communications without obtaining a warrant. However, Judge DeArcy Hall rejected this position, warning that allowing warrantless searches would let law enforcement build an unrestricted database of communications that could be searched at will.
"To hold otherwise would effectively allow law enforcement to amass a repository of communications under Section 702—including those of U.S. persons—that can later be searched on demand without limitation," wrote Judge DeArcy Hall in her decision.
The ruling comes after years of legal proceedings. In 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined that incidental collection of U.S. persons' communications under FISA was constitutional when targeting non-U.S. persons. However, the court left open the question of whether subsequent database searches required warrants.
This new decision establishes clear limits on government surveillance powers, requiring federal agencies to obtain warrants before searching FISA databases for information about U.S. residents. The ruling represents a notable victory for privacy advocates who have long challenged warrantless surveillance practices.