There are plenty of reputable lawyers, especially with the ACLU, who have been fighting in public courts against this secret parallel court structure. Early on

There are plenty of reputable lawyers, especially with the ACLU, who have been fighting in public courts against this secret parallel court structure. Early on, claims were simply thrown out due to "state secrets," presented in sealed folders only to the judge. Over time, the lawyers and organizations gained experience (a la Minesweeper) and got more substantive rejections from judges. The first win was with Nicholas Merrill, about five years in, though it took another three or four years for the gag order preventing him from talking about it to also be lifted: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/doe-v-holder http://www.aclu.org/national-security/doe-v-holder and http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifte... So speaking with those sorts of lawyers? Who have won fights against this secret system through a public court of law? Yep, those exist. Keep in mind, those we disagree with within the federal government aren't malicious or evil. They think they're protecting us, and they think they're acting lawfully. It's therefore reasonable to me that they see themselves as bound by the legal system because otherwise, how can they think of themselves as acting lawfully? And as much as the legal system has been stacked in their favor, when they lose, they likely abide by those rulings against them. At least, that's my read out of how much effort those folks put into (successfully) updating the law to reauthorize their behavior when we get a rare win. Now, our take is that the legal system has been grossly abused to carve out all of their current authority on surveillance. But that's where I think they're coming from.