PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 20, 2013
Ensuring Adversarial Process in the FISA Court Act - Amends the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to require the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (an independent agency that reviews executive branch actions taken to protect the nation from terrorism in order to ensure a balance with privacy and civil liberties) to appoint: (1) attorneys to serve as public interest advocates in proceedings before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a judge of the petition review pool, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR), and the Supreme Court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA); and (2) technical and subject-matter experts (including experts of computer networks, telecommunications, encryption, and cybersecurity), not employed by the federal government, to be available to assist such advocates in performing their duties.
Requires such courts, in any matter involving a significant interpretation or construction of FISA, to appoint at least one public interest advocate who will: (1) participate fully with the same rights and privileges as the federal government; (2) represent the interests of the people of the United States in preserving privacy and civil liberties, including with respect to rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution; and (3) have access to all relevant evidence as well as the authority to petition the court to order the government to produce other necessary evidence.
Authorizes such advocates to file motions and briefs, respond to motions or filings made by the federal government, and request rehearings or en banc consideration of a decision.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permits the FISC to request review by the FISCR, and permits the FISCR to request review by the Supreme Court, when matters before such courts in which a public interest advocate has been appointed involve a question of law in which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.
Requires the United States and the public interest advocate, when a court has requested such a review, to be given an opportunity to provide written briefs or arguments related to a decision by the FISCR or the Supreme Court to review a ruling.
Allows each relevant court, upon a finding that it would benefit from additional views, to permit participation by amicus curiae.
People & committees
Rep. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA-28] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3159 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3159 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3159 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3159 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.