I don't think it's too cynical to say (based on their voting record) that that's the exact question the Heritage Foundation alums on the court as asking themselves at this moment.
This law was passed as a response to a business leaking the rental history of a political figure, not for protecting the privacy of individuals. So, as long as a business doesn’t leak a political figure’s private information, they can pretty much do whatever they want, the court case is just a reminder.
