They're not even debating, they're just stating the major arguments. It could just as easily be an article stating the facts of the case, and might well be more valuable if it was.

Some of the arguments. If this is experimental journalism where they say "hey we recorded this conversation over coffee, wouldn't it be fun to share it on the site and see what happens?" then that's kind of cool, but if they consider it a full debate of the issues or even only the issues before the court, it's pretty weak.

Agreed. I was expecting something meatier than "Welp, I guess the judge is going to take another look at the All Writs Act".

I closed the tab almost immediately after opening it. There's nothing there that the HN crowd doesn't already know. In fact, NYT reporters could improve their reporting about this issue if they stopped by the HN comments section every once in a while.