Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the government to collect non-content metadata from communications service providers. Advocates for renewal, including members of the US intelligence community, argue that it is a critical tool for national security and failure to renew it will leave the nation vulnerable. Critics claim Section 702 creates a loophole that allows for the collection of personal information without a warrant. In this Briefcase, two experts, Glenn Gerstell and Liza Goitein, debate a key issue of reform, whether the FBI should require a warrant to search its database for the communications of US persons.
Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This judicial deference to administrative agencies, often called Chevron Deference has been a topic of great debate. Two experts, Mark Chenoweth and Ronald Levin, took on this debate via a variety of mediums -blogs, videos, etc. while additional experts chimed in with Amicus Briefs, culminating in an audience vote on which side convinced them.
Reforming Section 702: Should the FBI require a warrant to search its database for the communications of US persons?
Elizabeth Goitein , Glenn Gerstell
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the government to collect non-content metadata from communications service providers. Advocates for renewal, including members of the US intelligence community, argue that it is a critical tool for national security and failure to renew it will leave the nation vulnerable. Critics claim Section 702 creates a loophole that allows for the collection of personal information without a warrant. In this Briefcase, two experts, Glenn Gerstell and Liza Goitein, debate a key issue of reform, whether the FBI should require a warrant to search its database for the communications of US persons.
Should The Chevron Doctrine Stand?
Mark Chenoweth , Ronald M. Levin
Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This judicial deference to administrative agencies, often called Chevron Deference has been a topic of great debate. Two experts, Mark Chenoweth and Ronald Levin, took on this debate via a variety of mediums -blogs, videos, etc. while additional experts chimed in with Amicus Briefs, culminating in an audience vote on which side convinced them.