> Now, you could mention that two out of the five representatives disagree with the idea that the program is illegal. That would be fair enough.
Not based on the article, which said they rejected the majority's conclusion that the program was illegal because they believed that legality should have been left to the courts and not addressed by the board, which does not mean that they disagreed with the board's assessment on legality. (I'd argue that it suggests, but does not mean, that they did not like the fact that the board reached the conclusion, but even then could not actually argue against it.)
Ms. Brand wrote that while the legal question was “difficult,” the government’s legal theory was “at least a reasonable reading, made in good faith by numerous officials in two administrations of different parties.”
Not based on the article, which said they rejected the majority's conclusion that the program was illegal because they believed that legality should have been left to the courts and not addressed by the board, which does not mean that they disagreed with the board's assessment on legality. (I'd argue that it suggests, but does not mean, that they did not like the fact that the board reached the conclusion, but even then could not actually argue against it.)