A federal judge in California has decided to allow Twitter’s lawsuit against the attorney general’s office to go forward. She rejected arguments that the social media giant should not be allowed to be precise in its transparency reports when describing how it responds to the government’s requests for user data.

Twitter has argued that, just as it has been precise in other areas of its transparency report, so too should it be allowed to say precisely how many national security orders it has received from American authorities. For now, under federal law, it is only allowed to describe those numbers in vague ranges, such as “0 to 499,” and “500 to 999,” and so forth. Lawyers for Twitter say that this law constitutes a violation of the company’s First Amendment rights and is “prior restraint,” a concept of blocking legitimate speech before it is uttered.

Attorneys from the Department of Justice claimed in a hearing in federal court in Oakland, California, earlier this year that if Twitter is allowed to specifically say how many national security orders it has received, potential adversaries could somehow use that number to inflict harm.

But the judge didn’t buy it.

“The Government has not presented evidence, beyond a generalized explanation, to demonstrate that disclosure of the information in the Draft Transparency Report would present such a grave and serious threat of damage to national security as to meet the applicable strict scrutiny standard,” US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers wrote in a 21-page order on Thursday.

She continued: “The Government has not sufficiently explained how a restriction on reporting, beyond the bands in section 1874 , could be characterized as narrowly tailored to prevent a national security risk of sufficient gravity to justify the restraint, either in general or with respect to Twitter specifically.”

The government’s motion for summary judgment was argued in February 2017. At that time, Ars reported that the company’s lawsuit began more than two years ago when Twitter sued the Department of Justice and argued that the federal law that prohibits the company from being more precise is unconstitutional.

In recent years, many tech companies, including Twitter, have issued transparency reports that show the public how many law enforcement requests, from countries and agencies worldwide, they have received in a given period.

In the same order, Judge Rogers also granted Twitter’s request for the government to begin an “expedited” process to grant security clearances for Twitter’s lawyers. As previous high-level government attorneys, Twitter’s lawyers held secret-level clearances that have since lapsed.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

The next hearing is scheduled for August 14, 2017 in federal court in Oakland.