Here is the link to the actual opinion https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/fi....

The main part of the case was really about whether the plaintiffs had standing (Whether they could sue the NSA). The court said yes they did.

The government also argued that Judicial Review of the Patriot Act was not allowed. The court disagreed.

The government argued that even if the plaintiffs had standing the plaintiffs constitutional arguments would fail. The court sort of side stepped this issue and ruled that the Patriot Act did not authorize the broad searches taken on by the NSA. This leaves the constitutional issues open.

The case is being remanded (sent by to the trial court) for resolution. It is possible the trial court will take up the constitutional issues or it will punt and just rubber stamp the appeals court decision.


The media is focusing on the court using Snowden's revelations as evidence. This is also important.

This is big news and begs the question why did this not make headlines since it was issued on May 5, 2016, and here it is May 17 with still no media coverage. I bet if the court found in the other direction, there would be three inch headlines and tweets galore. The 97 page decision is worth reading.

What do you want to bet this will be appealed to the Supreme Court and overturned simply due to the progressive participants on the Court...

Good find db. Txs

I wish you were correct but this decision was made before a soon to be expired un"patriot act" and then would be replaced with the bodaciously now in place law called USA freedom act, and get this title...here goes "uniting and strengthening America, by fulfilling rights and ensuring effective discipline over monitoring act of 2015"

And all they did was update surveillance abuses, and cheered to the public how they protected our rights.

What a joke.
Reprobates, all of them.

Its a start.

Hello dbhallling,
Good find.
The decision is correct, but the reasoning was weighted on a technicality. From the article: "The court didn’t address the question of whether it would be constitutional for Congress to order such broad searches; it just held that Congress didn’t intend to authorize them."... "This was the right result -- but not necessarily because of privacy, which the court didn’t address directly at all. What was most wrong with the secret NSA orders was that they depended on a secret interpretation of the law, according to which “relevant” was assigned the broadest possible meaning. "
Still, it is a positive step; the decision is in line with the fourth amendment regardless and there was talk of relevance, implication of over-broad, over-reach, even if their decision did not hinge on it. Let us hope it doesn't end up at the SCOTUS, as presently constituted.
Respectfully,
O.A.

In the America I was taught to believe in, this would never have happened.
This is not that America (which may not have existed since 1859.) I predict the Dark Center court will rule for the federal government on this issue, and the Supreme Traitors will create weasle language for the new evil empire to continue to stir their cauldron of dictatorship. They will poke their noses into private matters of individuals until the people respond via force of arms.