10 FBI v. FAZAGA Opinion of the Court Circuit thought that §1806(f ) and the privilege are “animated by the same concerns,” 965 F. 3d, at 1046, and respondents argue that they operate in “fundamentally similar” ways, Brief for Respondents 54, but that is simply wrong. As an initial matter, it seems clear that the state secrets privilege will not be invoked in the great majority of cases in which §1806(f ) is triggered. Section 1806(f ) is most likely to come into play when the Government seeks to use FISA evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding, and the Government will obviously not invoke the state secrets privilege to block disclosure of information that it wishes to use. Section 1806(f ) is much more likely to be invoked in cases of this sort than in cases in which an aggrieved person takes the lead and seeks to obtain or disclose FISA information for a simple reason: individuals affected by FISA surveillance are very often unaware of the surveillance unless it is revealed by the Government. See 2 D. Kris & J. Wilson, National Security Investigations & Prosecutions §30:4 (3d ed. 2019). With these cases out of the way, what is left are cases in which an aggrieved party, rather than the Government, triggers the application of §1806(f ), but even under respondents’ interpretation of that provision, there is no clash between §1806(f ) and the state secrets privilege. The statute and the privilege (1) require courts to conduct different inquiries, (2) authorize courts to award different forms of relief, and (3) direct the parties and the courts to follow different procedures. First and most importantly, the inquiries required by §1806(f ) and our state secrets jurisprudence are fundamentally different. Under §1806(f ), the central question is the lawfulness of surveillance. Courts are instructed to determine “whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted.” §1806(f ) (emphasis added). By contrast, when the state secrets privilege is asserted,