Yes. One problem with WND is they often don't give good context in their articles. This is not as alarming as the headline. I had to read between the lines to find the court's probable rationale for its decision. Apparently the SC declined review because the plaintiffs lacked standing, since the claimed harm was that their 1st amendment rights were chilled. The article says that this was the administration's argument, but later it says that it was not the administration's argument. The SC certainly did not "green light" the NDAA by denying review. Courts are very picky about standing, and while the SC does not issue opinions on cases it declines, the standing issue was presumably determinative. We will have to wait until an actual US citizen is arrested and detained under this provision of the NDAA, sues, and the case makes its way through the courts, before we will get an actual SC ruling on they constitutional validity of the NDAA. If they rule the wrong way, it will be quite alarming, but to date the SC has not issued an opinion, one way or the other, on the NDAA.