That wasn't her point, it was the plaintiff's point, and it wasn't misstated.
As to Judge Taylor, I'm sure there is a case to be made that the TSP may infringe on the 4th Amendment, but she lacks the requisite information to prove it because it's classified. A hunch that a law is being broken is insufficent, and the plaintiffs can't show they've been materially harmed or are even targets. You may as well say that you suspect the CIA is following you with spy satellites, and you want them to stop. Since they don't have standing, there's no real case here.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what venue you'd need to use, but until someone shows that they've been harmed, I don't know how you'd prove a theoretical like that. I'm guessing you'd need someone within the program to step forward with a list of abuses, or to otherwise leak said abuses to the press.
There is such a thing as Congressional oversight. Also, in caes where an individual can prove actual harmed from abuse of the program, he would have standing to sue. That's the problem here. These plaintiffs cannot point to any actual harm, but only fear or speculation that they might be harmed. Any harm is, at best, potential but not demonstrably actual. In legal terms, they lack standing (which the constitution requires before an Article III judge can rule on it). The court lacked constitutional power even to hear the case and should have thrown it out for that reason alone.