In most civil matters, I'd agree. But when it comes to protecting civil rights from the government, I think the burden should shift. Especially in a case like this where large scale warrant-less clandestine spying can easily become "unreasonable search".
It's a reasonable expectation by citizenry that some safeguards be imposed, and the court should have recognized that expectation even if the legislature failed to.
I don’t agree with the burden shifting to the government (defendant) in those cases, but I do think the burden for proving standing in such cases should be less than the very rigid standards the courts use today in determining whether or not the plaintiffs have standing. Financial damages can be reimbursed, but the courts can’t undo the damage of violating rights and privacy. Saying “Oops! What the gov’t did was unconstitutional,” isn’t a just remedy IMHO.