The court merely held that the Congressionally authorized PAA, with its several layers of procedural protections, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court carefully said nothing about President Bush's unilateral warrantless wiretapping program: "we caution that our decision does not constitute an endorsement of broad-based, indiscriminate executive power." In fact, the PAA was enacted in part because of constitutional and political concerns about Bush's unilateral executive authority to engage in the kind of secret, warrantless surveillance he ordered on his own, without Congressional authorization. The fact of the PAA itself suggests that there were constitutional problems with Bush's unilateral program.

This opinion validates the Congressionally authorized PAA, not Bush's unilateral warrantless wiretapping program. More here: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/01/f…