en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act

The surrounding paragraph is describing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Official U.S. government sources explicitly say FISA can be used against U.S. persons, including U.S. citizens.

The Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance explains that for FISA electronic surveillance, "For targets that are U.S. persons (U.S. citizens, permanent resident aliens, and U.S. corporations), FISA requires heightened requirements in some instances." The same page also notes that "agents of foreign powers" may include U.S. citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or similar conduct.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court likewise says FISA covers applications "directed at U.S. persons" and specifically lists applications under Section 704 "to target U.S. persons who are outside of the United States." So FISA is not limited only to foreign powers and foreign nationals.

The reauthorization discussion here is about H.R. 3199 in 2005. An official congressional conference report on H.R. 3199 states: "On November 9, 2005, the House disagreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3199, and agreed to a Conference with the Senate thereon." That directly contradicts the article's claim that the House did so on September 11.

Both the White House and the enrolled public law record date the signing on March 9, 2006. President Bush's statement says, "Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199" and is dated March 9, 2006. The official public law is likewise labeled "PUBLIC LAW 109–177—MAR. 9, 2006." March 8 was the date the bill was presented to the President, not the date he signed it.

The Mayfield case did not strike down the Patriot Act's Section 213 delayed-notice or “sneak and peek” provision.

An official DOJ Office of the Inspector General report on the Mayfield investigation says that, contrary to public speculation, Section 213 was not used: there were no “sneak and peek” searches in that investigation. The report explains that covert searches before Mayfield’s arrest were conducted under FISA, and after his arrest the searches were based on overt criminal search warrants that did not implicate the Patriot Act.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Mayfield v. United States likewise describes the constitutional claim as a challenge to 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823, i.e. FISA’s electronic-surveillance and physical-search provisions as amended by the Patriot Act. So the article incorrectly ties the Mayfield litigation to the Patriot Act’s “sneak and peek” provision.

The article is discussing Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. DOJ materials say the federal electronic surveillance statutes known as Title III were "originally enacted as Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968."

But the Senate's official history of the Church Committee says the committee's resolution passed on January 27, 1975, and its final report issued on April 29, 1976. Because the Church Committee postdates the 1968 statute by several years, its criticism of COINTELPRO could not have been part of what mainly caused Congress to enact the 1968 Wiretap Statute.

Under ECPA, pen registers and trap-and-trace devices are generally authorized by court order rather than by search warrant. The statutory rule in 18 U.S.C. § 3121 says such devices may not be used without first obtaining a court order under section 3123, and DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance likewise says Title III of ECPA requires government entities to obtain a court order authorizing their installation and use.