Judge Claire V. Eagan of the Northern District of Oklahoma was appointed this month to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by the Chief Justice of the United States.
Her term on the FIS Court began on February 13, 2013 and will extend until May 18, 2019. She replaces Judge Jennifer B. Coffman, who retired on January 8 before the end of her term. Another appointment, to replace outgoing Judge John D. Bates, whose term ends tomorrow, is imminent, said Sheldon Snook, spokesman for the Court.
The FIS Court authorizes electronic surveillance and physical searches for intelligence and counterterrorism purposes. The current membership of the Court is listed here.
Judge Eagan was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2001.
The FIS Court has been discussed lately as a potential model for some form of judicial review of the use of drones in lethal strikes against suspected terrorists. Speaking at the February 7 confirmation hearing of John Brennan to be CIA Director, Senate Intelligence Committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein said her Committee would examine “the proposal to create an analogue of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the conduct of such strikes.”
But the application of the FISA model for authorizing intelligence surveillance to the substantially different issue of lethal targeting would not be straightforward, and may not be appropriate at all.
The notion “that federal judges ought to be assigned the task of monitoring, mediating and approving the killer instincts of our government […] is a very bad idea,” wrote Judge James Robertson, a former FIS Court member, in the Washington Post (“Judges shouldn’t decide about drone strikes,” February 15).
Datasets and variables that do not align with Administration priorities, or might reflect poorly on Administration policy impacts, seem to be especially in the cross-hairs.
One month of a government shutdown is in the books, but how many more months will (or can) it go? Congress is paralyzed, but there are a few spasms of activity around healthcare and the prospects of a continuing resolution to punt this fight out until January or later.
At a period where the federal government is undergoing significant changes in how it hires, buys, collects and organizes data, and delivers, deeper exploration of trust in these facets as worthwhile.
Moving postsecondary education data collection to the states is the best way to ensure that the U.S. Department of Education can meet its legislative mandates in an era of constrained federal resources.