It has now been 2.5 years since the first Snowden revelations were published. And in 2015, government surveillance marched on in both large (the National Security Agency) and small (the debut of open source license plate reader software ) ways.

Within the past year, Congress voted to end Section 215 of the Patriot Act—but then substituted it with a similar law (USA Freedom Act) that leaves the phone metadata surveillance apparatus largely in place even if the government no longer collects the data directly. Even former NSA Director Michael Hayden admitted in June 2015 that this legal change was pretty minor.

We also saw some notable 2015 reforms as to how federal law enforcement uses stingrays, the invasive cell-phone surveillance devices in use by everyone from local cops all the way up to the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Department of Justice (the parent agency of the FBI) and DHS both announced new policies that require the agencies to get a warrant prior to deploying the snooping device.

And in October 2015, America’s most populous state implemented the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act . Among other reforms, this act imposed a warrant requirement for the state’s cops when using a cell-site simulator. Other states that already have similar laws include Washington Minnesota , and Utah

But perhaps 2015's most notable surveillance happenings took place in the court room. Last year, we summarized five cases and trumpeted: “If the Supreme Court tackles the NSA in 2015, it’ll be one of these five cases.” Exactly zero of the cases we profiled got anywhere close to the nine justices. In short, the rise of surveillance tech and the glacial pace of surveillance legislation proves the old adage: technology moves at a lightning pace, but the wheels of justice can turn frustratingly slowly.

Luckily, 2016 may contain a number of equally, if not more important, cases that are currently sitting at the appellate level, meaning these decisions may even file to be heard by the Supreme Court. Our list of five cases to watch in 2016 includes a handful of criminal suspects who were told about government surveillance used against them after their convictions. Beyond that shared detail, the cases can wildly vary. One man was convicted of plotting to blow up a 2010 Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon; another case centers around dozens of fast-food robberies.

Happy Holidays

Case name: United States v. Mohamud

Status: Appeal pending in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Let's start with the Christmas tree. United States v. Mohamud involves a Somali-American who is accused of trying to blow up a 2010 lighting ceremony in Portland. Undercover FBI agents posed as jihadis and presented Mohamud with the means to conduct the operation, which turned out to be wholly bogus. Mohamed Osman Mohamud was eventually found guilty and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

But after the conviction, the government disclosed that it used warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Seeing this, Mohamud’s legal team attempted to re-open the case—but the judge denied their motion. Mohamud's defense lawyers continue to raise this issue on appeal.

As Stephen Sady, Mohamud’s attorney, wrote in the May 2015 appellate brief to the 9th Circuit:

For the contents of Americans’ communications, any balancing of interests has already been performed by the Constitution: a particularized warrant, based on probable cause, is necessary for the government to collect and read the content of, or listen to, Americans’ private conversations. The § 702 programs are unprecedented in terms of the broad scope of the collections and the lack of any particularized suspicion to support the massive acquisition and retention of Americans’ communications.

Federal prosecutors countered by saying that there is no misuse of Section 702 in this case. As they argued:

Section 702 provides that targeting procedures must be “reasonably designed” to “ensure that any acquisition authorized under [the certification] is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States” and to “prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.” See 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(d)(1). The FISC has repeatedly held that collection pursuant to the Section 702 targeting procedures meets these requirements and is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The case represents the thorny nexus between law enforcement standards and national security, where different rules of evidence and disclosure apply. Although Mohamud is accused of terrorism, he is being tried in open civilian court as a criminal.

Sady has until February 29, 2016 to file his reply—oral arguments will likely follow sometime later in the year.

Ineffective counsel doesn't even describe it

Case name: United States v. Hasbajrami

Status: Appeal pending in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

Similar to Mohamud, this case involves a United States person (citizen or legal resident) accused of attempting to provide support for terrorism-related activities. According to the government, Agron Hasbajrami, an Albanian citizen and Brooklyn resident, traded e-mails with a Pakistan-based terror suspect back in 2011. The terror suspect claimed to be involved in attacks against the US military in Afghanistan. After he was apprehended, Hasbajrami pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to terrorists in 2013. Federal prosecutors laid out the details in a press release following his sentencing hearing:

Hasbajrami sent the individual more than $1,000 to support the jihadist cause. Then, in pursuit of his goal to engage personally in violent jihad, Hasbajrami arranged to meet the individual in the Federally Administered Tribal Area of Pakistan (the “FATA”). In one e-mail message, Hasbajrami stated that he wished to travel abroad to “marry with the girls in paradise,” using jihadist rhetoric to describe his desire to die as a martyr.

After he pleaded guilty, the government informed Hasbajrami that it had used Section 702 surveillance against him. Thus, the case was re-opened. That fact is notable, as many cases that have tried to fight surveillance have fallen down for lack of standing. Hasbajrami's case is different, however, because he can definitively prove that he was spied upon by the government.

As the case was nearing trial by mid-2015, Hasbajrami pleaded guilty a second time. But shortly thereafter, he moved to withdraw the plea again. In a handwritten letter to the judge dated July 20, 2015, he wrote:

The judge denied his request. The Albanian was sentenced to 16 years in prison and ordered to be deported back to Albania upon the conclusion of his incarceration. Hasbajrami's lawyers have filed notice of their appeal in the 2nd Circuit but have yet to file their opening brief. It will likely come sometime in 2016.