FISC is an article 3 court created by congress with very specific jurisdiction (there is actually question what kind of article court it is, and wikipedia used to claim article 1, but the scholarly views i can find are that it's an article 3 court).
Like all article 3 courts that are not SCOTUS, this means it can only consider what congress has said it can.
Congress can and apparently did create a court whose entire job is to sit around and rule on a special type of search warrant (what used to be known as 501(f) petitions, they have some other name now, but are commonly known as "FISA warrants")
The court rules, as promulgated, do not allow the release of opinions by the clerk, unless a judge/etc has ordered it.
This is in sharp contrast to most article 3 courts, where opinions may not be "precedential" (though that distinction was mostly abolished), but you can still get them
However, it's not clear whether it is improper or not. It's certainly not a clear cut issue.
The real problem here is that the court was really created as a check on the executive branch, and it was expected, that any constitutional injury would get redressed through the normal process.
That is, gov takes you to normal federal court for a crime, in that court, they include the evidence obtained through FISA warrant, as well as basis for that warrant, and you challenge any constitutional injury there (through exclusion of evidence or whatever).
Like all article 3 courts that are not SCOTUS, this means it can only consider what congress has said it can.
Congress can and apparently did create a court whose entire job is to sit around and rule on a special type of search warrant (what used to be known as 501(f) petitions, they have some other name now, but are commonly known as "FISA warrants") The court rules, as promulgated, do not allow the release of opinions by the clerk, unless a judge/etc has ordered it. This is in sharp contrast to most article 3 courts, where opinions may not be "precedential" (though that distinction was mostly abolished), but you can still get them
However, it's not clear whether it is improper or not. It's certainly not a clear cut issue.
The real problem here is that the court was really created as a check on the executive branch, and it was expected, that any constitutional injury would get redressed through the normal process.
That is, gov takes you to normal federal court for a crime, in that court, they include the evidence obtained through FISA warrant, as well as basis for that warrant, and you challenge any constitutional injury there (through exclusion of evidence or whatever).