I think you are missing the point. The analysis just says that you can't get an exception from the subpoena power by just claiming "but the whole point of my business is providing protection from it!".
A legal analysis like this is not too concerned with the specifics of a case because otherwise you couldn't have broad judicial principles at play.
That is to say, even if you think the government request was outrageous, Kerr's analysis simply says that yes, there's a long history of the right of the 'people' (here represented by the grand jury) to ask for information even if in the process the dignity or business of the person/institution the government is requesting the information from is damaged.
Lavabit needs to make a good case within those legal boundaries (which Kerr says is difficult) or try to change those boundaries.
A legal analysis like this is not too concerned with the specifics of a case because otherwise you couldn't have broad judicial principles at play.
That is to say, even if you think the government request was outrageous, Kerr's analysis simply says that yes, there's a long history of the right of the 'people' (here represented by the grand jury) to ask for information even if in the process the dignity or business of the person/institution the government is requesting the information from is damaged.
Lavabit needs to make a good case within those legal boundaries (which Kerr says is difficult) or try to change those boundaries.