The government argued that the plaintiffs' case should not be allowed to proceed because they could not prove that the FISA amendments would cause them future injury. The court disagreed.
In the written opinion of the case, the court noted: “The government overstates the standard for determining when a present injury linked to a contingent future injury can support standing. The plaintiffs have demonstrated that they suffered present injuries in fact—concrete economic and professional harms—that are fairly traceable to the [FISA amendments] and redressable by a favorable judgment. The plaintiffs need not show that they have been or certainly will be monitored.”
The facts of the case must now be heard by a lower court to determine whether the FISA amendments are unconstitutional.
♦ Photo of poster by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com/Flickr