The vast majority of Trump's Supreme Court short list this last round consisted of principled originalists, not social conservatives/authoritarians.
Gorsuch has argued that the state must have a valid warrant to perform a search, that the warrant must have been properly executed and obtained, and that police may not use a drug dog to justify a search in the absence of a warrant .
From Justice Stevens dissent in Kyllo v United States:
> Despite the Court's attempt to draw a line that is "not only firm but also bright," ... the contours of its new rule are uncertain because its protection apparently dissipates as soon as the relevant technology is "in general public use," ... Yet how much use is general public use is not even hinted at by the Court's opinion
Eavesdropping on speech in what we used to consider private areas may no longer require a warrant once server-side voice recognition devices (e.g. Amazon's Echo) if someone convinces a judge that type of voice recognition technology "is general public use".
Regardless of which view takes the majority in the Supreme Court, it would be hard to argue in favor of Section 702. The 4th amendment is pretty clear cut compared to laws regarding marriage and abortion. Warrantless spying on millions of Americans is illegal, plain and simple.
2016 - https://www.scmagazine.com/eff-files-amicus-brief-to-persuad...
2014 - https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-sues-nsa-director-nat...
2012 - https://www.wired.com/2012/08/eff-spy-documents/
2011 - https://www.wired.com/2011/12/dragnet-surveillance-case/
2) A FOIA case isn't exactly criticizing the administration on policy.
3) 4) and 5) the NSA suit originated against the GW Bush Administration. Quoting their own press release: "Specifically the EFF wants the government to make public a secret court ruling that found that the feds had broken a 2008 wiretapping law that was intended to legalize President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program."
To be intellectually honest about the public stances they take on issues they claim to support and rights they claim to defend, compare their press releases from during the Obama Administration versus during the Trump administration (or GWB administration) with respect to identical, specific acts by the Obama administration.
Note specifically their silence on Internet Privacy (lost under Obama, then reimplemented in a weaker way and delayed) and on Net Neutrality (also lost under Obama and limited to a half-assed after-the-fact regulation change).
And they didn't even bother writing a press release on the subject.
The TPP is an interesting example given a lot of liberal media was very against it until it became a Trump issue and they flipped.
However this doesn't apply to the EFF that I've seen. The EFF is very consistent in their principles and they don't play partisan politics.
Building cases and maneuvering takes a long time and they have to be efficient with their funding.