Talk:In re Sealed Case No. 02-001

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I disagree that In re Sealed Case should be merged into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review article. The decision was historic and separate. Perhaps if there were hundreds of disclosures, a "greatest hits" section could be added to the article. But, as it stands now, I recommend the articles not be merged. Saebvn (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I tagged this page as technical. It has way too much legal terminology and fails to explain what the decision means in common language. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

>In process of expanding and explaining in common language. Drkersdeofgry (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply