It seems like the Solicitor General made his case to the Supreme Court, claiming defendants would be notified. Fast forward to recently, Dianne Feinstein goes and tells a reporter that yes, we've used evidence from a warrantless wiretap in this particular case. That guy's lawyer responds with the legal version of "wait, what?", the Solicitor General realizes that he (unknowingly?) lied to the Supreme Court, throws a fit (because you don't lie to the Supreme Court), Justice orders prosecutors to start revealing when such evidence is used, and now guy is mounting a legal challenge and ACLU/EFF/EPIC are going after the original case, wherein the Solicitor General (knowingly?) lied to the Supreme Court.
the Solicitor General realizes that he (unknowingly?) lied to the Supreme Court
From the article:
After reading the article, Mr. Verrilli sought an explanation from the National Security Division, whose lawyers had vetted his briefs and helped him practice for his arguments, according to officials with knowledge of the internal deliberations. It was only then that he learned of the division’s practice of narrowly interpreting its need to notify defendants of evidence “derived from” warrantless wiretapping.
There ensued a wider debate throughout June and July...
The timing seems a co-incidence with the Snowden leaks on parallel construction.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130716/01513323814/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131017/18381624923/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/when-will-government-o...