(a)
In general— The court shall take steps to protect sensitive information that comes before the court in connection with proceedings under this Act. These steps may include reviewing evidence or pleadings and hearing arguments ex parte, issuing protective orders, placing material under seal, and applying security procedures established under the Classified Information Procedures Act for classified information to protect the sensitive information.
(b)
In camera proceedings— All hearings and other proceedings under this Act may be conducted in camera, as needed to protect information that may be subject to the privilege.
(c)
Participation of counsel— Participation of counsel in proceedings under this Act may be limited if the court determines that the limitation is a necessary step to protect information the Government asserts is protected by the privilege or that supports the claim of privilege.
(d)
Guardian ad litem— Where counsel is excluded from a proceeding, the court shall have discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the absent litigant’s interests, drawing, in consultation with the excluded nongovernmental party, from a previously generated list of attorneys who have been granted required security clearances in the past and have agreed to serve in this capacity. The guardian ad litem shall not discuss the information claimed as privileged or its content with any nongovernmental party or nongovernmental party’s counsel.
(e)
Production of adequate substitute pending resolution of the claim of privilege— If, at any point during its consideration of the Government’s claim, the court determines that disclosure of information to a party or counsel, or disclosure of information by a party that already possesses it, presents a risk of a harm described in subsection (a) that cannot be addressed through less restrictive means provided in this subsection, the court may require the Government to produce an adequate substitute, such as a redacted version, summary of the information, or stipulation regarding the relevant facts, if the court deems such a substitute feasible. The substitute must be reviewed and approved by the court and must provide counsel with a substantially equivalent opportunity to assess and challenge the Government’s claim of privilege as would the protected information.