Hello there again! For this post, let me explain the legal ramifications of both outcomes of the case I and my fellow justices have been working on. As you may remember, this is the one where the AP discovered their phones have been tapped into by the U.S. government and then sued due to invasion of privacy. If we rule against the AP, it could go against the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure of property and against random arrests. The Fourth Amendment also forms the basis for many laws that focus on that ideal, most notably laws surrounding wiretaps and other forms of surveillance. Ruling against the AP would also reinforce the legality, if not the constitutionality, of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act actually allows surveillance of citizens who are or might become terrorists, among other things. You can learn more about it here.
If we rule for the AP, this would likely tighten current surveillance laws about who, how, and why in regards to who the government performs surveillance on. An example of a change might be that the vast majority of surveillance goes toward individuals and groups who already have a history of terrorism instead of just following everyone, even the ones without a criminal record. It might also provide more leniency towards journalists who might be covering a more sensitive story about terrorism. Given the research and sources that could go into those stories, it might look fishy if certain flagged search terms kept appearing in those phones and computers. So going case-by-case might be the better option if we vote in favor of the AP.
Sources
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm
Good work!