During the 2007 trial, the lawyers representing the foundation alleged that the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] fabricated quotes and modified transcripts.<ref>{{cite news| url=httphttps://articleswww.latimes.com/2007archives/la-xpm-2007-feb/-25/nation/-na-holyland25-story.html | work=The Los Angeles Times | title=Charity's lawyers say quotes were fabricated | first=Greg | last=Krikorian | date=February 25, 2007}}</ref> The defendants attempted to motion for evidence collected under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) as unconstitutional, although the judge A. Joe Fish denied this request on February 27, 2007.<ref name="auto1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_04-cr-00240/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_04-cr-00240-2.pdf|title=United States District Court – Northern District of Texas Dallas Division, "United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (01), Shukri Abu Baker (02) Mohammad El-Mezain (03) Ghassan Elashi (04) Mufid Abdulqader (07), and Abdulraham Odeh (08), Defendants. Criminal Action No. 3:04-CR-240-G, Filed February 27, 2007}}</ref> The defendants argued that they themselves needed access to each classified intercepts to find exculpatory information and that the summaries provided were inaccurate. Judge Fish noted that the court was already aware that not every intercept was summarized by the government nor was every intercepted collected listened to by the government. Fish claimed that the defendants' access was already sufficient since they had personal access to all the declassified summaries of the FISA intercepts and to the four lines of FISA intercepts that were fully declassified. Their attorneys who possessed security clearances could also access all FISA intercepts the government produced. Judge Fish mentioned that if this was insufficient then the parties could use the summaries of intercepts and other criteria – such as the phone numbers involved in the communications – to identify specific relevant intercepts in order to ask the government to review and declassify the identified intercepts.<ref name="auto1"/> Judge Fish criticized the defendants for seeking to declare the whole of CIPA as unconstitutional rather than utilize the pathway to declassification already laid out for them on December 8, 2006. In response to the mistranslated summaries, Judge Fish noted that unless the defendants found more than the one example provided amongst the declassified summaries that are significantly inaccurate or misleading, they could not provide that the presented inaccuracies were widespread rather than an isolated incident. Judge Fish again mentioned that the defendants could use the aforementioned pathway for declassification of FISA evidence and stated that the defendants could request relief if they found widespread issues related to misleading summaries, although "it is highly unlikely that such appropriate relief would include a declaration that CIPA is unconstitutional."<ref name="auto1"/>
On July 5, 2007, Judge Fish again denied the defendants request to prevent the government from introducing or relying upon any communications from lines that the defendants could not access and prohibit the government from using forty-five transcripts of conversations that the defendants never received in summary form.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_04-cr-00240/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_04-cr-00240-11.pdf|title=United States District Court – Northern District of Texas Dallas Division, "United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (01), Shukri Abu Baker (02) Mohammad El-Mezain (03) Ghassan Elashi (04) Mufid Abdulqader (07), and Abdulraham Odeh (08), Defendants." Criminal Action No. 3:04-CR-240-G. July 5, 2007.}}</ref> Judge Fish denied the request stating that the "forty-five intercepts constitute less than twenty-three percent of the intercepts the government intends to use at trial" and that the government offered starting in August 2005 to seek declassification of any intercepts the defendants would request. Judge Fish criticized the defendants' lawyers as having "drag their feet" and "having refused to seek declassification of specific documents for at least eighteen months after the government offered its assistance, the defendants now wish to place blame on the government for their own failure to seek declassification of documents in preparation for trial." Of the government's 200 transcripts designated for use at trial, the defendants had access to full transcripts for 50 of the intercepts, and access to 105 declassified summaries of additional intercepts. They roughly had access to 155 of 200 or 77.5% of the intercepts the government planned to use at trial.<ref name="auto"/>
