The only one that pertains to what I'm talking about is at the bottom, where the lower court says it "takes it for granted" that "FISA could not encroach on" the President's power to engage in warrantless searches for foreign-intelligence gathering. That's a pretty bold position to be taking for granted! Basically it would mean that all the President would have to do is say that he's conducting espionage (even on U.S. citizens here in the U.S.) for the purpose of foreign intelligence gathering, and no one could question it.
In any case, though, the court in that case ruled that FISA had in fact been followed, so their pronouncement about whether or not FISA can restrict the President is just dictum. And very ill-considered dictum, at that.
To the contrary, the court's statement that "FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power" is not only not "very ill-considered dictum", but it flows naturally from all the cases that preceded it, that held that the President had inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It flows naturally because of the long-established proposition that the Constitution trumps the law (FISA).