The NSA meta-data program has two chances to survive.

One chance is if the Supreme Court declares that the program meets the definition of "relevant" in response to EPIC's writ of mandamus request. If they do so, it will be by a tight margin, and narrowly tailored to fit the circumstances.

Another chance is if Congress authorizes the program explicitly, which is what Feinstein's bill would do. An explicit Congressional authorization would make the mandamus issue moot. I'm sure the Supremes would appreciate that.

There are three ways that the program could be killed off.

One is if it is declared unconstitutional, which the ACLU suit argues.

One is if EPIC's writ of mandamus is granted, and Congress doesn't act.

The third is if Congress acts to end the program. The linked post at EFF summarizes a bunch of bills in Congress that seek to do that.

The veil of secrecy around the government's illegal and unconstitutional use of both Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is being lifted. As a result, Congress has seen a flurry of legislation to try and fix the problems; however, as we've been saying since June there are far more questions than answers about the spying. And Congress must create a special investigative committee to find out the answers. Right now, the current investigations are unable to provide the American public with the information it needs.

For now, here's a quick summary of the bills in Congress drafted after the June leaks that have a chance to go forward. They try to fix Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, curtail the secret law being created by the surveillance court overseeing the spying (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA Court), and change how the FISA Court operates. Unfortunately, there is no bill in Congress with prospects of moving forward that tackles Section 702 of FISA—the section used for PRISM.

My calls:
Supremes could go either way on the writ of Mandamus but Congress will pass Feinstein's bill by a narrow margin after Leahy makes it look like a fight and Feinstein begrudgingly accepts "concessions" that involve "reporting" and "transparency" but nothing material.

The ACLU's 4th amendment arguments will not be accepted - the courts will not overturn the third party principle. However, the ACLU's 1st amendment arguments are the stickler. If correctly considered, I think its hard to say that a meta-data program like this does not impact the freedom of association.