I think it actually started with (A) the DOJ filing a action to compel the company to comply with the national security letter. Then (B) the company replied requesting the letter be invalidated on First Amendment (compulsory non-disclosure of the NSL) and statutory grounds. Then (C) the DOJ files another motion showing why they need the information and asking for the court to force the company to comply with the NSL while the case is pending so they can pursue their investigation.
The court ended up ruling that the non-disclosure provision violated the First Amendment and invalidated the NSL law as a whole.
I think the only law the DOJ was accusing Credo of violating was 18 USC ยง 2709[1] which requires carriers to turn over subscriber information and prohibits certain disclosure.
But you're correct that the Government argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the law. This was because Credo brought its action under a statute that gives a court limited authority to modify or revoke the NSL. However, the court found the constitutional challenge was a necessary part of Credo's claim and allowed it.
The court ended up ruling that the non-disclosure provision violated the First Amendment and invalidated the NSL law as a whole.
I think the only law the DOJ was accusing Credo of violating was 18 USC ยง 2709[1] which requires carriers to turn over subscriber information and prohibits certain disclosure.
But you're correct that the Government argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the law. This was because Credo brought its action under a statute that gives a court limited authority to modify or revoke the NSL. However, the court found the constitutional challenge was a necessary part of Credo's claim and allowed it.
1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2709