"Riley offers a case study in judicial engagement. Judicial engagement isn’t a new theory of judging, and it isn’t a complicated one. It holds that, in every constitutional case, judges should honestly seek to determine whether the government is pursuing constitutionally permissible ends through constitutionally permissible means, basing their decision on real facts and real evidence. Judges shouldn’t presume that the government is acting constitutionally and they should be vigilant in ensuring that the government doesn’t pursue even legitimate ends through means that aren’t reasonably related to those ends or that violate individual rights."
Folks, that is the essence of the Framers' "necessary and proper" clause.
IOW, real judges would assume laws to be unconstitutional and demand the government prove otherwise.
It is the only acceptable approach in a free government.
It’s all the more remarkable since SCOTUS had previously ruled exactly the opposite. I’m giving some credit to Edward Snowden for changing public opinion on government and electronic privacy in general.