The first one doesn't say anything about constitutional issues.
The appeals court did not rule on whether the surveillance violated the U.S. Constitution.
The second link has a ton of links. The first one is only referring to a preliminary injunction; i.e., it found that "there's a good chance the plaintiff will win", but did not find in favor of the plaintiff. As far as I can tell, all the other links there are about the same ruling.
The third link is talking about that same ruling, again:
A federal judge said Monday that he believes the government's once-secret collection of domestic phone records is unconstitutional
Emphasis on believes; that was not a judicial finding that the government violated the constitution.
He didn't even order the government to stop:
However, he put off enforcing his order barring the government from collecting the information, pending an appeal by the government.
The appeals court did not rule on whether the surveillance violated the U.S. Constitution.
The second link has a ton of links. The first one is only referring to a preliminary injunction; i.e., it found that "there's a good chance the plaintiff will win", but did not find in favor of the plaintiff. As far as I can tell, all the other links there are about the same ruling.
The third link is talking about that same ruling, again:
A federal judge said Monday that he believes the government's once-secret collection of domestic phone records is unconstitutional
Emphasis on believes; that was not a judicial finding that the government violated the constitution.
He didn't even order the government to stop:
However, he put off enforcing his order barring the government from collecting the information, pending an appeal by the government.
What happened on appeal? http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/ED64DC482..., or a more readable summary here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-28/u-s-appeal... and http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-phone-surveillance-ruling-reverse...