Catch-22 if you can...

As I was concerned would happen, the Federal District Court of Appeal ruled that people who had strong reason to believe they were being wiretapped without any constitutional safeguards could not proceed with their litigation against the government because they lacked "standing."

As I have written here, "standing" is an issue courts use on their way to granting rights to people they want to help and denying rights to people they don't want to help. There is little in the way of consistency or sadly integrity in too many decisions that turn on "standing."

Here, the professors and others who brought suit had a strong reason to believe they were victims of wiretaps without constitutional authority. However, "national security" rules prohibited allowing them to confirm if they were being tapped. Then, when they sued the government to determine if they were being spied on, the Court said, without the information, they have no right to sue. A perfect Catch-22.

(Edited)