50 U.S.C. § 1809

Criminal sanctions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 50 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Prohibited activitiesA person is guilty of an offense if he—(1) intentionally engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by this chapter, chapter 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, or any express statutory authorization that is an additional exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance under section 1812 of this title;(2) intentionally discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by this chapter, chapter 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, or any express statutory authorization that is an additional exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance under section 1812 of this title; or(3) knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States an application, in whole or in part, for an order for electronic surveillance under this chapter.(b) Defense

It is a defense to a prosecution under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

A person guilty of an offense in this section shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

(d) Federal jurisdiction

There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

(Pub. L. 95–511, title I, § 109, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1796; Pub. L. 110–261, title I, § 102(b), July 10, 2008, 122 Stat. 2459; Pub. L. 111–259, title VIII, § 801(3), Oct. 7, 2010, 124 Stat. 2746; Pub. L. 118–49, § 13(a), (b), Apr. 20, 2024, 138 Stat. 881.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 95–511, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1783, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1801 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

2024—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 118–49, § 13(a)(1)(A), struck out “intentionally” after “if he” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 118–49, § 13(a)(1)(B)(ii), which directed the substitution of a semicolon for “; or”, could not be executed because the word “or” did not appear.

Pub. L. 118–49, § 13(a)(1)(B)(i), inserted “intentionally” before “engages in”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 118–49, § 13(a)(1)(C)(i), which directed the substitution of “intentionally discloses” for “disclose”, was executed by making the substitution for “discloses” to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 118–49, § 13(a)(1)(C)(ii), (D), added par. (3).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 118–49, § 13(a)(2), substituted “under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a)” for “under subsection (a)”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 118–49, § 13(b), amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.”

2010—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 111–259, § 801(3)(A), substituted “section 1812 of this title;” for “section 1812 of this title.;”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 111–259, § 801(3)(B), substituted “title.” for “title..”

2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–261 substituted “authorized by this chapter, chapter 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, or any express statutory authorization that is an additional exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance under section 1812 of this title.” for “authorized by statute” in pars. (1) and (2).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 110–261 effective July 10, 2008, except as provided in section 404 of Pub. L. 110–261, set out as a Transition Procedures note under section 1801 of this title, see section 402 of Pub. L. 110–261, set out as an Effective Date of 2008 Amendment note under section 1801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 9× “§ 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A)], respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of [ 50 U.S.C. § 1809 ] shall have a cause of action against any…”

United States v. Alejandrina Torres, 751 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1985). · cites it 7× “§ 2511 (2)$ (codifying § 201(b) of FISA); 50 U.S.C. § 1809 (codifying § 109 of FISA).”

Pellegrino v. U.S. Transp. SEC. Admin., 896 F.3d 207 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “13 Title III provides standards for when 13 In addition, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1809 and 1827 criminalize unauthorized engagement in or disclosure of information from electronic surveillance or physical searches under color of law, but carve out an affirmative defense where the defendant…”

Carter Page v. James Comey, 137 F.4th 806 (D.C. Cir. 2025). · cites it 10× “For the reasons below, we are unanimous in affirming dismissal of Page’s claims of unlawful surveillance under FISA (see 50 U.S.C. § 1809 (a)(1)) on the ground that they are conclusively time-barred.”

Yassir Fazaga v. Fbi, 916 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “50 U.S.C. § 1809 (a). To determine whether Plaintiffs plausibly allege a cause of action under § 1810, we must decide (1) whether Plaintiffs are “aggrieved persons” within the meaning of the statute, (2) whether the surveillance to which they were subjected qualifies as…”

Nadine Pellegrino v. TSA, 937 F.3d 164 (3rd Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “§§ 2510–2522, 3121–3127, which Congress enacted six years before the law enforcement proviso, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1809 , 1827, which was enacted four years afterward.”

Brian Iverson v. United States, 973 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2020). “§§ 2510-2522 , 3121-3127, which Congress enacted six years before the law enforcement proviso, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1809 , 1827, which was enacted four years afterward.”

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (T-112), 597 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “[3] 50 U.S.C.A. § 1809 (a)(1). With FISA's enactment, Congress amended Title III, repealing the constitutional power exception and replacing it with language excluding from Title Ill's scope (1) the conducting of electronic surveillance by a government employee in accordance…”

Jewel v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 965 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 2× “) The Jewel Plaintiffs allege seventeen counts against Defendants for: violation of the Fourth Amendment (counts 1 and 2); violation of the First Amendment (counts 3 and 4); violation of FISA, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1809 ,1810 (counts 5 and 6); violation of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.”

Wikimedia Found. v. NSA/CSS, 14 F.4th 276 (4th Cir. 2021). “§ 1810 , whereby a plaintiff may recover damages from a person who is criminally prosecuted under 50 U.S.C. § 1809 for intentionally engaging in, disclosing, or using electronic surveillance in violation of FISA; and 18 U.”

Hepting v. AT & T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2006). “ruary 22, 2006, claims that AT & T and AT & T Inc have committed violations of: (1) The First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution (acting as agents or instruments of the government) by illegally intercepting, disclosing, divulging and/or using plaintiffs’…”

Wilson v. Libby, 498 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D.D.C. 2007). “See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1809 , 1810 (2000). One of Congress’s goals in enacting the IIPA certainly was “to protect intelligence officers and sources from [the] harm” that results from the disclosure of covert identities.”

Show all 30 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.