3 ms·

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/us-usa-security-ns... http://www.

• ikeboy 11y ago
  The first one doesn't say anything about constitutional issues. The appeals court did not rule on whether the surveillance violated the U.S. Constitution. The second link has a ton of links. The first one is only referring to a preliminary injunction; i.e., it found that "there's a good chance the plaintiff will win", but did not find in favor of the plaintiff. As far as I can tell, all the other links there are about the same ruling. The third link is talking about that same ruling, again: A federal judge said Monday that he believes the government's once-secret collection of domestic phone records is unconstitutional Emphasis on believes; that was not a judicial finding that the government violated the constitution. He didn't even order the government to stop: However, he put off enforcing his order barring the government from collecting the information, pending an appeal by the government. What happened on appeal? http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/ED64DC482F286F1785257EAF004F71E8/$file/14-5004-1570210.pdf http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/ED64DC482..., or a more readable summary here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-28/u-s-appeals-court-sends-nsa-collection-challenge-back-to-judge http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-28/u-s-appeal... and http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-phone-surveillance-ruling-reversed-court-sides-national-security-agency-klayman-v-2073190 http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-phone-surveillance-ruling-reverse...