Which explains the motley group the EFF has assembled to join its lawsuit. In the lawsuit, each explains its advocacy activity. The First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles works for social justice. NORML works to decriminalize marijuana. The Council on American Islamic Relations does what you'd expect. The California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees represents gun manufacturers and sellers. Human Rights Watch watches human rights—including those of whistleblowers. Each of these groups has joined the suit as a plaintiff, each seeing how the collection of data could make it easier for the government to observe their activism.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit shortly after the Snowden revelations became public that differs in at least one significant ways. Its lawsuit was predicated on the fact that it as an organization was a customer of Verizon's Business Services section—the only phone company division for which an order to collect metadata is public. The EFF (and its co-plaintiffs) argues persuasively that the program is understood to be broader than just affecting Verizon, citing the words of Director of National Intelligence (and suit co-defendant) James Clapper to that end. The point is important because the plaintiffs must have standing for the suit. The Supreme Court has already rejected one argument against surveillance on standing grounds. (The ACLU also employed the First Amendment argument, however.)

Few organizations can match the EFF's recent legal success against government surveillance. Earlier this month, it won a ruling determining that the government could wave off critique by claiming revelations would harm national security. Last month, the EFF was told that a key filing from the government's secret surveillance court should be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

A chapter in the history of the government's domestic surveillance, then, could end with religious groups and Greenpeace (did we not mention Greenpeace?) and pro-marijuana groups and gun rights advocates standing outside the Supreme Court, telling assembled news crews about how the day was a victory for the protection of the First Amendment. Dibs on the movie rights.

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.