U.S. Code » Title 50 » Chapter CHAPTER 36— FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

50 U.S.C. § 1810

Civil liability

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 50 CasesGoogle Scholar
An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, 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 section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover—(a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages equal to the greater of—(1) if the aggrieved person is a United States person, $10,000 or $1,000 per day for each day of violation; or(2) for any other aggrieved person, $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation;(b) punitive damages; and(c) reasonable attorney’s fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.(Pub. L. 95–511, title I, § 110, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1796; Pub. L. 118–49, § 15(a), Apr. 20, 2024, 138 Stat. 882.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2024—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 118–49 amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: “actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · 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 6× “Finally, there is no basis to presume that traditional post-hoc remedies, such as the Exclusionary Rule or FISA's civil suit provision, 50 U.S.C. § 1810 , would not adequately deter the use or dissemination of this information.”
Yassir Fazaga v. Fbi, 916 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 6× “Section 110 of FISA, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1810 , creates a private right of action for an individual subjected to electronic surveillance in violation of FISA’s procedures.”
Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). · cites it 2× “1796 , 50 U. S. C. § 1810 (c). B. Attorney's Fees Not Referred to as "Costs" 1.”
Al-Haramain Islamic Found. v. Barack Obama, 690 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 6× “On remand, the district court held that FISA preempts or displaces the *1092 state secrets privilege, that the government implicitly waived sovereign immunity for damages under FISA’s civil liability provision, 50 U.S.C. § 1810 , and that two of the Al-Haramain plaintiffs were…”
Al-Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Obama, 705 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 6× “On remand, the district court held that FISA preempts or displaces the state secrets privilege, that the government implicitly waived sovereign immunity for damages under FISA’s civil liability provision, 50 U.S.C. § 1810 , and that two of the Al-Haramain plaintiffs were…”
James Kehoe v. Fid. Fed. Bank & Trust, 421 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2005). “§ 338 (i)(7); 50 U.S.C. §§ 1810 & 1828. We could not locate any guiding case authority interpreting the relevant remedial language of these statutes.”
Jewel v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 965 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 1809 , and they rely on 50 U.S.C. § 1810 to provide a waiver of sovereign immunity in order to sue for damages.”
In Re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecomm. Records Litig., 564 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2008). · cites it 2× “Further, plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated and punitive damages pursuant to 50 USC § 1810 . Complaint, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc v.”
In Re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecomm. Records Litig., 700 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 5× “The court ordered defendants to show cause why, as a sanction for failing to obey the court's orders: (1) defendants should not be prohibited, under FRCP 37(b)(2)(ii), from opposing the liability component of plaintiffs' claim under 50 USC § 1810— that is, from denying that…”
FBI v. Fazaga, 595 U.S. 344 (2022). · cites it 2× “§1346 ; FISA, 50 U. S. C. §1810 ; the Privacy Act, 5 U.”
Wikimedia Found. v. NSA/CSS, 14 F.4th 276 (4th Cir. 2021). “These include 50 U.S.C. § 1810 , whereby a plaintiff may recover damages from a person who is criminally prosecuted under 50 U.”
Aclu Found. of S. California v. William P. Barr, 952 F.2d 457 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “This is not to say that the legality of FISA surveillance may not be considered by federal judges other than those on the FISA Court or the FISA court of review.”
Show all 32 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.