Can you challenge constitutionality &quot;en passant&quot; as part of a different legal procedure?
<p>In the US (federal) legal system, is a party to a legal procedure (criminal, civil, etc.) which is not, directly and in itself, concerned with the constitutionality of any law or regulation - challenge constitutionality as an argument for or against some decision during the procedure?</p>
<p>An example (phrased in layman's terms, since I'm a layman when it comes to US law): A person sues the federal government for damages, and wants to base their lawsuit on government submissions to FISA; so, they argue that the secrecy of those, mandated by law, is unconstitutional. Does the court have the authority to entertain the question of this constitutionality (assuming that higher instances have not already set down binding precedent)?</p>
<p>PS - Not that it's very relevant, but in Israeli law, this is called &quot;indirect assault&quot; (less literal translations: &quot;indirect challenge&quot;) of constitutionality, and is possible in theory, though not so much in practice.</p>

<p>There is no &quot;different legal procedure&quot; for challenging the constitutionality of a law.  The only way to do so is through the process that this question contemplates: to argue that the law is unconstitutional in a civil or criminal trial.  Whether the law bears directly on the matter at trial or only on ancillary matters such as discovery, the court has the power to find the law unconstitutional and to issue orders accordingly.</p>
<p>The extent to which such a ruling binds other courts depends on which court issues the ruling.</p>

united-states constitutional-law