Case 1:14-cv-09763-VM Document 44 Filed 08/28/15 Page 12 of 35 identified two limitations required by the First Amendment: (l) the Government must disclosure requirements non-disclosure initiate if an requirement j1.1dicial review of non- individual so this that, (1) second limitation, the and requests, judicial review must be meaningful. to subject See second ~ the Government has the burden to (2) reason exists to expect that (3) an NSL will risk an enumerated harm.'~~ the that at 878-83. As Circuit to satisfy First Amendment procedural (2) to indicated requirements, show that a good disclosure of receipt of at 881. First, by placing the burden on the government to show a good reason, a district court does not have to •find a negative, that no good reason exists to believe that i.e., disclosure may risk one of the enumerated harms." Id. at 876. Second, as to the ''good reason" requirement: [A) reason will not qualify as 'good' if it surmounts only a standard of frivolous.,ess. We understand the statutory requirement of a f i•ding that an enumerated harm •may result' to mean more than a conceivable ' When Mukasey was decided, Section 3511 provided that a court could modify or set aside a nondisclosure requirement if it found •no reason to believe that disclosure may endanger ~he national security Of the United St•tes, interfere with a critinal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interfe~e with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or physical safety .of any person.• 18 u.s.c. 5 3Sll(b)(2)-(3) (in effect Mar. 9, 2006 - June l, 2015) (emphash added). At that time, under Section 3511, a court was also to treat an official certification of that danger as •conclusive• absent a finding of bad faith. This version of the statute remained in effect -- except in the Second Circuit aa modified by Mulfaaey - - until June 2, 2015, when the USA FREEDOM Act took effect, - 12 -