I'm not acquainted with the full details of the ACLU suit, but presumably they are suing on the basis of a violation of the 1st and 4th amendment. If the government has now promised to stop the (alleged) violations, how does that make the suit moot?

Wouldn't the activity which had already taken place be what is in question, and shouldn't the court rule on whether the activity was indeed lawful regardless of whether the government has stopped doing it?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

I think the Administration is practicing deceit at a deeper level. At various times Bush and Gonzales have asserted a "national security" power allowing them to tap any phone, any time, anywhere. By "conceding" that a FISA warrant is necessary, Bush is trying to skip around the guts of the ACLU suit, which contends that many of the "national security" cases should have Fourth Amendment protection. Remember that normal Fourth Amendment law doesn't apply to FISA cases.

Also, recall that FISA allows retroactive warrants. If you don't have probable cause, break in, search, and see if you can find some and bring it back to FISA court.

January 20, 2009. Justice becomes possible.