“This development doesn’t necessarily moot the appeal, any more than compliance with an injunction ever moots an appeal challenging that injunction. If the government were to prevail on this appeal and in other related cases, then presumably it would no longer be bound by legal orders requiring compliance with FISA. And the government’s continuing legal position is that it does not have to comply with FISA; therefore it has some interest in continuing its appeal.
But the government has filed an unusual memorandum with the court of appeals, in essence arguing that the government’s recent compliance with FISA eliminates the controversy between the parties.
If that were stictly true — if the government were now committed to FISA compliance going forward — it could simply dismiss its appeal, because the underlying injunction does not require anything more than such statutory compliance.
But the government isn’t dismissing its appeal, because it does not want to be bound by the injunction — that is, it wants to retain the option of departing from FISA again if and when the President sees fit to do so. As I wrote above, that’s perfectly fine, and not out of the ordinary, even if I disagree with the merits of the government’s position.
What is very odd, however, is that the government is now arguing that because of its compliance with FISA, the court of appeals should vacate the district court injunction.”
]]>