The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.
She further declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."
She went on to say that "The president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth [Amendment] in failing to procure judicial orders." (bracketed material added)
The NYTimes.com article is here, the LATimes.com article is here, and the Detroit Free Press is here.
The Washington Post article is here, and also adds this quote from the opinion:
"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. " . . . There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."
Judge Diggs was appointed by President Carter in 1979.
Perhaps not ironically, the U.S. Supreme Court's biggest national security search case was United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Keith), 407 U.S. 297 (1972). The government lost that case, too.
[cross-posted to www.fourthamendment.com]
