> http://www.wsj.com/articles/appeals-court-rules-nsa-phone-program-not-authorized-by-patriot-act-1431005482?mod=djemalertNEWS
>
> <http://www.wsj.com/articles/appeals-court-rules-nsa-phone-program-not-authorized-by-patriot-act-1431005482?mod=djemalertNEWS>
>
> Appeals Court Rules NSA Phone Program Not Authorized by Patriot Act
>
> ENLARGE
> A sign stands outside the National Security Agency campus in Fort Meade, Md.
> Photo: PATRICK SEMANSKY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> By
> Devlin Barrett
> May 7, 2015 9:31 a.m. ET
> A federal appeals court ruled Thursday the National Security Agency’s
> controversial collection of millions of Americans’ phone records isn't
> authorized by the Patriot Act
> <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/22/mitch-mcconnell-readies-bill-to-reauthorize-controversial-nsa-program/>,
> as the Bush and Obama administrations have long maintained.
>
> The ruling by the three-judge panel in New York comes at a delicate point in
> the national debate over government surveillance, as Section 215 of the
> Patriot Act is due to expire next month and lawmakers are haggling about
> whether to renew it, modify it, or let it die.
>
> The court’s ruling came in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union
> arguing the data collection should be stopped because it violates Americans’
> privacy rights. A lower court judge ruled the program was constitutional, and
> the civil liberties group appealed, leading to Thursday’s decision.
>
> “The text of (Section 215) cannot bear the weight the government asks us to
> assign to it, and...does not authorize the telephone metadata program,’’ the
> court wrote.
>
> The court declined to address the issue of whether the program violates
> Americans’ rights, because, they found, it was never properly authorized by
> existing law.
>
> The judges didn't order the collection to stop, noting that the legislative
> debate and the looming expiration of Section 215 will force action on the
> issue one way or another.
>
> The judges also note that if Congress decides to approve some version of the
> phone data collection program in coming days, then the privacy issue could be
> revisited in court.
>
> The panel sent the case back to the lower court judge for further review
> based on the appeals court findings.
>
> Write to Devlin Barrett at [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
