[3][4] In one particular revelation, The Guardian reported that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, at the request of the NSA, had ordered Verizon to hand over several months' worth of personal communications records for many of its customers.

Leon wrote: I cannot imagine a more "indiscriminate" and "arbitrary" invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval [...] Surely, such a program infringes on "that degree of privacy" that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

[1]Leon, the first judge to examine an NSA program outside of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) on behalf of a non-criminal suspect, described the technology used as "almost Orwellian", referring to the George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Citing the NSA's vast scope and "the evolving role of phones and technology", Leon's opinion pointed out that the Fourth Amendment needs to adapt to the digital age.

[1] This was supported by a leaked FISC document stating that Verizon had been ordered to provide customer communication data and business records on a regular basis.

[10][14] On the ruling, The Washington Post noted: "NSA officials... now stand accused of presiding over a program whose capabilities were deemed by the judge to be 'Orwellian' and likely illegal.

Circuit Court of Appeals issued a short memorandum opinion that vacated Leon's ruling and held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the heightened burden of proof regarding the standing required for an injunction against a government program.

[20] This resulted in a split precedent, which in turn caused significant confusion over whether NSA surveillance violated the Constitution, along with calls for a definitive Supreme Court decision on the matter.