The scope and legality of the government 's warrantless electronic surveillance programs was discussed Tuesday as a federal appeals court reviewed a lower U.S. court 's injunction that would block collection of data from two plaintiffs who are suing . Activist Larry Klayman , an attorney who heads the group `` Freedom Watch , '' filed suit last year based on published reports of wrongdoing from whistleblower Edward Snowden . The former contractor with the National Security Agency accused authorities of misusing some of the capabilities he observed , and acting without a judicial or statutory basis . Klayman , using himself as an aggrieved party from the surveillance , used the lawsuit to accuse the government of conducting `` a secret and illegal government scheme to intercept and analyze vast quantities of domestic telephonic communications , '' along with communications `` from the internet and electronic service providers . '' Tuesday he said he has the standing to bring the suit as a customer of Verizon , one of the companies known to be cooperating with warrantless surveillance . But when the appeals panel asked him for documented proof he had been targeted , Klayman said only that the broad scope of the surveillance made it likely . The other plaintiff is Charles Strange , whose son Michael was an NSA cryptologist and Navy SEAL in Afghanistan in 2011 when he was killed in the downing of his helicopter by insurgents . The father told reporters he has been the target of secret intelligence gathering because he 's been asking questions about the circumstances surrounding his son 's death . Both men late last year won a preliminary injunction that would have barred the government from collecting data on them , and it ordered authorities to destroy any data already gathered . But the District Court judge immediately stayed his order pending the appeal that was heard Tuesday , because of `` significant national security interests '' that could be affected . Justice Department attorney Thomas Byron , defending the government , asked the appeals court judges to reverse the injunction , saying a phone company 's business records are not protected by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches . Byron said there was no documentation that any records gathered were `` intrusively acquired . '' He said Congress passes laws to protect privacy , such as for hospital records and banking , and that the government 's surveillance is constrained by the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , with activities judged by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court . Klayman responded by pointing out the government 's admission of as many as 2,000 errors in how NSA conducted warrantless surveillance . `` It 's false to say 'we do n't get into peoples ' underwear , ' '' Klayman said , asserting the indiscriminate collection alone is an intrusion he considers unconstitutional . After the hearing , Klayman told reporters on the courthouse steps that he expects a ruling early next year , and that he expects the case to go the Supreme Court . He called warrantless surveillance by the government a case of monumental importance . `` Just the inception of acquiring that information -- they 're not entitled to it -- without any showing of probable cause , or reasonable suspicion of contact with terrorists , that 's the problem . And that 's a constitutional violation under our Fourth Amendment and our First Amendment . '' Klayman acknowledged in court he 's been a controversial figure over the years . A judge asked him if he feels he is being personally targeted . `` I 'd be surprised if I 'm not , '' he replied . Among his recent lawsuits is one filed in October accusing the Obama administration of supporting terrorism because of what he considers `` reckless and grossly negligent '' handling of the Ebola crisis . Klayman , in that lawsuit , said the lack of travel restrictions from areas affected by the Ebola crisis provides an opportunity for terrorists to use the disease for germ warfare .
Justice Department says safeguards ensure compliance with the law . Case descended from revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden . One plaintiff has also sued the government for handling of the Ebola crisis .