The plaintiffs challenge the amended NSL statute on constitutional grounds. On summary judgment (without the need for oral argument from the attorneys in the case) the court rules that the revised nondisclosure provision in § 2709 is still a prior restraint on speech that fails strict scrutiny, that the conclusive presumption of harm to national security upon certification by high level officials in § 3511 violates the constitutional separation of powers, and that the gag orders violate the First Amendment because they are not narrowly tailored in scope or duration. Because these provisions cannot be severed, the court strikes down the NSL statute completely but stays enforcement pending review.