(FreedomBeacon.com)- The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. On Monday, the Court announced that they would review a case that involves Muslim American men who accused the Federal Bureau of Investigation of using a paid informant to follow their movements and surveil them in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks.
The case filed by the three men was previously dismissed on the grounds that it would reveal state secrets, but was later brought back by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling of the Ninth Court will now be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and depending on the judgment made, it could dramatically change the impact that the 1978 law has on the country.
Under the act, commonly known as “FISA,” federal law enforcement are allowed to work with intelligence agencies to gather information about people who are suspected to be working as foreign agents or engaging in espionage or terrorism. A FISA surveillance warrant allows these agencies to secretly surveil people who meet these criteria, and those warrants may be granted once evidence is given to a secret, dedicated court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
As it stands, the Act requires that the evidence presented to this court remain state secrets.
It has been argued by some civil liberties agencies, however, that federal judges must be allowed to review this secret evidence in relevant cases to ensure that surveillance was in fact justified.
In this case, the Supreme Court is expected to review whether Section 1806(f) of the act supersedes state-secrets privilege, and whether federal judges will be able to consider the evidence to resolve cases – including the case of the three Muslim men who believe that they were surveiled in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
The ruling could have huge implications – even with the Mueller investigation into fake accusations that former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.
Democrat-leaning justices may wish to rule on the side of civil liberties, but if they do, they risk proving (again) that President Trump was set up all along.