The thin blue line runs around the world. NSA is party to multinational intelligence sharing agreements. If they don’t delete the data to prevent discovery and disclosure in public trials, they are in violation of the contract. Any legal scholars have a rejoinder to this? How would you have approached this case to prevent outmaneuvering in these legalistic ways? It is a mockery of the rule of law that it is upheld and twisted in this way for some agreements but not in favor of the Constitution.

From linked article on Jewel v. NSA[1]:

On March 10, 2014, Judge White imposed a temporary restraining order, requiring the NSA and other parties to halt the destruction of evidence until a final resolution of the case. On June 5, 2014, the EFF filed a motion for an emergency hearing requesting that the court enforce this temporary restraining order after discovering that the government had continued the destruction of evidence. A motion filed by the government claimed that doing so would have severe consequences "including the possible suspension of the Section 702 program and potential loss of access to lawfully collected signals intelligence information on foreign intelligence targets".[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._NSA

[2] https://www.eff.org/files/2014/06/05/govtemergencymotion.pdf