Question: Attorneys, journalists, media, and legal and human rights organizations brought action against the Central Intelligence Agency, challenging the constitutionality of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In particular, they objected to a recent change to FISA, through the FISA Amendments Act, that shifted the party-monitoring compliance with the act's limitations from the judiciary to the executive branch, eliminating the power of the judiciary to review the surveillance procedures. The government argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case to court. The plaintiffs argued that the recent change to FISA created a reasonable fear of future injury and that they had incurred costs to avoid that future injury. How do you think the court ruled in this case? Why?