Question presented includes a little background:
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. 1881a (Supp. II 2008) (Section 1881a) allows the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to authorize jointly the targeting of "non-United States" persons "reasonably believed" to be outside the United States. This targeting would be to acquire "foreign intelligence information," and would normally be with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's prior approval.
The respondents in this case are "United States persons who may not be targeted for surveillance under Section 1881a." They filed their action on the day Section 1881a was enacted, and have sought a declaration that Section 1881a is unconstitutional, and an injunction permanently enjoining any foreign-intelligence surveillance under Section 1881a.
The crux of the issue is whether the respondents lack Article III standing to seek prospective relief because they have proffered no evidence that the United States would imminently acquire any of their international communications using Section 1881a-authorized surveillance. And they have not shown that an injunction prohibiting Section 1881a-authorized surveillance would likely redress the claimed injuries.
Second Circuit decision at: 638 F.3d 118.
If you like standing issues (and you know we get them once in a while!) and/or wiretapping and dragnet-surveillance issues, keep your eyes on this one! Fourth Amendment issues undergird the whole thing.
