The petitioner confronted respondent by way of the United States Freedom Of Information Act and its subsequent civil action, for information relating to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation in response to petitioners interaction and support of organizations the United States believes to be terror organizations. This only after petitioner was proclaimed a member of a terrorist organization during a police interrogation for a State criminal proceeding. The district court would grant summary judgment as well, the court of appeals granted summary affirmance, all in favor of respondent.

However, the question that has been ignored by both lower courts remains. Since petitioner was proclaimed a member of a terrorist organization and that information was to be used against petitioner at a criminal trial, according to federal law 50 U.S.C. § 1806(d) petitioner had every right to confront respondent in the only avenue afforded petitioner. Not to mention, should have been enough material fact to survive the ruling by both lower courts.

Whether petitioner had a right to confront respondent under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act