[kylelibra]

Here's the actual decision: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/NSA_ca2_20150507.pdf

Concurrence by Judge Sack: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/clap...

Here's what struck me as the most interesting comment from Sack - "Considering the issue of advocacy in the context of deliberations involving alleged state secrets, and, more broadly, the ʺleakʺ by Edward Snowden that led to this litigation, calls to mind the disclosures by Daniel Ellsberg that gave rise to the legendary ʺPentagon Papersʺ litigation."

[ganeumann]

Love the analysis of standing. The government said the ACLU did not have standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that their phone records, though collected, had been examined. The catch-22--that they never really would be able to because that's classified--was avoided by quoting the 4th Amendment:

"The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures" (italics in the original.)

[CPLX]

I noticed that as well. The plaintiffs hadn't stressed that issue, it seems to have been brought up newly by the appellate judges themselves. It's an interesting and important distinction, they essentially said that by transferring the information to a government computer the government has conducted a "seizure".

That is excellent news for those of us that are opposed to these kinds of government databases. Though the supremes will have to agree before that becomes doctrine.

[jdp23]

Here's a summary of the legal issues by Marty Lederman: http://justsecurity.org/22799/breaking-circuit-rules-section...

And Marcy Wheeler's got some excerpts as well: https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/05/07/2nd-circuit-rules-phon...

[patzerhacker]

It's times like this that really make me miss Groklaw.

[dlgeek]

Who knows, maybe it's decisions like this that will bring PJ back.