> ...dismissed for lack of standing. In particular, the government argued that we had not provided sufficient evidence of the government’s surveillance for the

> ...dismissed for lack of standing. In particular, the government argued that we had not provided sufficient evidence of the government’s surveillance for the case to proceed. It also claimed that the case could not proceed because it would require the Court to consider information the government claims is protected by the state secrets privilege. In other words, the government contended that the case cannot be litigated without disclosing information about Upstream surveillance that would harm U.S. national security—and, accordingly, in its view, the entire case must be dismissed. The classic "you can't prove we did anything illegal, and if you did, that in itself would be illegal" defense. Fuck these people, seriously