The court chose to rule on the statutory side of the equation, as the Supreme Court has directed in the past ("don't rule on constitutional issues when you can resolve the case on a statutory basis" - paraphrased).
The court wrote: "The district court held that § 215 of the PATRIOT Act impliedly precludes judicial review; that plaintiffs‐appellants’ statutory claims regarding the scope of § 215 would in any event fail on the merits; and that § 215 does not violate the Fourth or First Amendments to the United States Constitution. We disagree in part, and hold that § 215 and the statutory scheme to which it relates do not preclude judicial review, and that the bulk telephone metadata program is not authorized by § 215. We therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED.
I have been covering this case for a long time:
The previous post in this series is here.
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller - 12
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller - 11
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller - 10
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller - 9
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller - 8
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller - 7
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller - 6
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller - 5
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller - 4
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller - 3
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller - 2
- ACLU vs. Clapper, Alexander, Hagel, Holder, and Mueller