According to the NY Times, the court "found that the Protect America Act did not violate the Constitution because the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, contained an exception for the collection of foreign intelligence information."

Now, here is the complete text of the 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I don't see an exception for the collection of foreign intelligence. Do you?

I haven't read the case (I hear Glen Greenwald has and has a lengthy critique of the NYT piece), but one thing to note.

This is not actually a real appellate court. Even the FISA Court is dubious as to being a proper court vs some kind of administrative layer, but the way it is set up has insulated from review the question of how the court operates and how it fits into the judicial branch. In any event, this is an "appellate" review by an appellate group that is NOT a Circuit Court of Appeals.

Still, what a sad day, when Congress hangs a telecom that doesn't go along with an Unconstitutional program out to dry.

NYT's reporting is very skewed, although it is a really bad ruling.

First a bad ruling made by a court that may not be a Constitutionally valid court (the FISA appellate court)

But the ruling isn't "just" limited to the Protect America Act (and not to powers of the President to violate statute or act with no statutory delegations); it is limited to the one, single set of directives before the court.

It is an "as applied" ruling, so it is not on the PAA in general, but only on the court's determination of whether in the specific order and fact pattern before it, the PAA as applied was valid. IOW, no facial challenge to the statute was mounted or ruled upon.

And the opinion, while specifically acknowledging that there is no Sup Ct authority on foreign intelligence supporting its ruling,goes on to rely primarily on the court's own (not subject to appeal) prior ruling and on a long series of bootstrapping "trust the Executive branch" assumptions, presumptions, and other umptions.

IOW, it's an opinion that says it is Constitutional for gov to seize communications of Americans, in America, where the primary purpose of the interceptions is for criminal investigations (as long as trustworthy folks like Gonzales and Schlozman and Goodling certify that there was some intelligence gathering aspect too) and where there is no probable cause and no independent magistrate and no acccess, ever, for people to discover the nature and extent of intrusions into their communications.

Lawyers, doctors, indian chiefs - Alberto Gonazles can have them all with no oversight, bc gosh darn it, the court just thinks that Gov is so credible and believable.

Keep in mind, the court is relying on people who kidnapped and tortured Khalid el-Masri based on mistaken identity - then just dumped him off in a different country, thinking that no one would believe him. The folks who lied to the nation about WMDs and yellow cake. Anyone remember Clement certifying to the Sup Ct - in open court - that the United States "doesn't torture?"

The guys who have "lost" (in violation of statute and derogation of God given competence) millions of emails. Conspired to destroy evidence despite court orders and ethical responsibilities to preserve. Lied to Congress. Lied to the courts and Congress. Lied to the American people. Over and over and over. The guys who the FISC found had submitted around a big chunk of false and misleading FISA applications just a few years back.

IOW, the court's ruling (a simpering ode to trusting the Executive branch) pretty much negates ever having a warrant for anything - contrary to the holding in Katz.