Use your head.  I mean this as a compliment, not an insult.  I trust you can figure this out.  Start with basics, i.e., that courts aren't there to judge the wisdom of legislation.  They start with the letter of the law.  They have no authority to strike that which seems ill-advised or unreasonable.  When a statute says that all that's required for a violation is "gross negligence," by what right does "a fellow at the conservative Cato Institute" say otherwise.  Sanchez may even be right; maybe the law is non-sensical to require only "gross negligence" in 793(f) when the rest of the statute requires "intent."  (A point I'll say more about in a second.)  But unless we live in a truly post-Constitutional America, it's not even up to a court ---- unlike it offends the Constitution --- to strike the words "gross negligence" from 793(f)(1) and substitute the word "intentionally."  I know you can see this.

As for the whole rest of the statute requiring intent.  Not so.  In fact,   cont'd