I don't see Roberts embracing a reading of the state secrets privilege that essentially makes these sorts of constitutional claims unreviewable. What was on the line in both Reynolds and General Dynamics was money. The justices were quite pointed about this in General Dynamics, accusing the company in oral arguments of just being greedy, etc. The assertion of the privilege in at least some of the NSA cases raises countervailing issued that didn't exist in Reynolds and GD. If the Court does decide to take up the issue, I think the government will find the privilege less helpful than they might wish.
edit to my other comment: Reynolds wasn't a contract action, but a tort action, but what was essentially on the line was damages.
"I don't see Roberts embracing a reading of the state secrets privilege that essentially makes these sorts of constitutional claims unreviewable."
Roberts didn't seem all that interested in Amnesty vs Clapper, which, while not a state secrets claim, is, IMHO, not going to be all that wildly different in terms of ideological breakdown.
In fact, they even went so far as to say "Second, even if respondents could demonstrate that the targeting of their foreign contacts is imminent, they can only speculate as to whether the Government will seek to use §1881a-authorized surveillance instead of one of the Govern- ment’s numerous other surveillance methods, which are not chal- lenged here."
Which is just, IMHO, beyond throwing the government a bone and going whole hog into crazy land on government surveillance.
I'm aware of the aftermath of the oral arguments/opinion on clapper, and I could see SCOTUS taking something on because the government kinda screwed them on parts of the opinion, but I have a lot of trouble believing the court is going to be all that receptive, state secrets claim or not.
Roberts is actually the one Supreme Court Justice heavily involved in the FISA court, as he is responsible for appointing the Federal judges that sit on its bench.
See how this represents a Mexican standoff where every branch of the US government is complicit? I think the American people are going to have to offer Amnesty to one of the 3 branches to get them to roll over on the other two ;)
"Roberts is actually the one Supreme Court Justice heavily involved in the FISA court, as he is responsible for appointing the Federal judges that sit on its bench."
I doubt he really wants this, actually (and I believe he's said as much). It's simply what congress made law, so he does it.
edit to my other comment: Reynolds wasn't a contract action, but a tort action, but what was essentially on the line was damages.