Cite as: 595 U. S. ____ (2022) 3 Opinion of the Court an aggrieved person” 1 in any court proceeding2 any information obtained under FISA, the United States must “notify” both “the aggrieved person and the court.” Subsection (e) then allows anyone against whom the Government intends to use such information to move to suppress that evidence on the ground that it was “unlawfully acquired” or that “the surveillance was not made in conformity with an order of authorization or approval.” §1806(e). The specific provision at issue here, subsection (f ) of §1806, establishes procedures for determining the lawfulness and admissibility of such information. 3 That subsection permits a court to make that determination “in camera —————— 1 An “aggrieved person” is “a person who is the target of an electronic surveillance or any other person whose communications or activities were subject to electronic surveillance.” 50 U. S. C. §1801(k). 2 Section 1806 applies to proceedings in both federal and state court. See §§1806(c), (d). It also applies to proceeding before any “department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority.” Ibid. 3 The provision in its entirety reads: “Whenever a court or other authority is notified pursuant to subsection (c) or (d), or whenever a motion is made pursuant to subsection (e), or whenever any motion or request is made by an aggrieved person pursuant to any other statute or rule of the United States or any State before any court or other authority of the United States or any State to discover or obtain applications or orders or other materials relating to electronic surveillance or to discover, obtain, or suppress evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance under this chapter, the United States district court or, where the motion is made before another authority, the United States district court in the same district as the authority, shall, notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States, review in camera and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance as may be necessary to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted. In making this determination, the court may disclose to the aggrieved person, under appropriate security procedures and protective orders, portions of the application, order, or other materials relating to the surveillance only where such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the surveillance.”