AP story here. Jonathan Adler, at Volokh, has these initial impressions.
The case has been decided 5-4 on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing. I may update this later today. Background available here at SCOTUS Blog. Lyle Denniston previously wrote: "The Supreme Court showed [during oral argument] Monday that it is genuinely troubled that the govenment, carrying on a sweeping program of wiretaps seeking to track terrorism activity, may be putting lawyers in a serious professional and ethical bind as they represent individuals potentially caught up in that eavesdropping. It was not immediately clear, though, whether that worry was deep enough to lead the Court to give those attorneys a right to sue to challenge the constitutionality of the global surveillance that seems to be tracking Americans’ conversations, too."
I had listed the case as one of the developments to look for in 2013, in my list of the Top Ten Legal Ethics Stories of 2012.