Because a Clinton appointed Judge says so ??
I am not an attorney, but I found a copy of the actual text of the FOIA and even right in there it says that it doesn't apply to material that is classified for national security reasons, so how can the idiot judge rule that they should be released?!
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm
"This section does not apply to matters that are--
(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order; "
"FISA is not constitutional. When have courts EVER given Congress the right to conduct foreign intelligence operations? Never."
You are confusing two concepts. The act is constitutional in its providing a route for a specific action. The route is legal as has been confirmed in a lot of cases. The act would only be unconstitutional if it was used to limit the executive in carrying out his plenary powers. Even then, the act would be legal, just not legally binding on the executive.
It is a lot like posting a 55mph speed limit. That does not mean drivers are limited to only 55. They can also drive more slowly and, if they are an official vehicle carrying out an official mission, the speed can be far greater. The law is legal but not binding in all cases. FISA is a perfectly legal route to wiretaps but is not the only route.