The leaked opinion (not a ruling) had absolutely no force of law, so is irrelevant. And anyway, had that been a factor, why didn't the Nebraska cops just wait until the decision of the court was handed down on June 24th? We now know that the most likely reason for the leak was to try to force Robert's hand: he was apparently trying to get Gorsuch on board with a simple response to the actual matter at hand in Dobbs, thereby avoiding the wholesale nonsense that Alioto's opinion has created (i.e. the elimination of stare decisis). It succeeded, but it wasn't certain that it would... and indeed the draft differs from the ruling in a few areas, one of which has to do with Robert's Concurrence.
Second, the issue is not whether or not the data in Meta (et al's) control belongs to them or to you, but that they have it. You seem to have mixed up situations where companies provide data voluntarily and those where they respond to a subpoena (specifically, a Subpoena Duces Tecum) for the production of evidence in their control, regardless of who owns it. There are a few valid ways to object to such subpoenas (e.g. because the evidence is covered by some form of privilege), but in general ownership of the data is irrelevant and it must be handed over. This is the underlying reason why end-to-end encryption is necessary but not sufficient: the encryption keys must also stored somewhere safe.
Lastly, I'm glad you're so optimistic that no-one will get prosecuted for travelling out of state for a procedure prohibited in that state. I am far less sanguine, in no small part because prosecution is not the same as conviction: even if the prosecution was unsuccessful, the goal of groups like the NRLC is satisfied by the creation of fear of the consequences, rather than the consequences themselves. For example, the South Carolina prohibition against publishing information that someone could use to get an abortion is on its face a violation of the First Amendment, but do you really want to be the guinea pig that proves that?
And that's without the issue of things like the Texas SB8 Private Right of Action, which doesn't care about where the procedure occurs, as long as the defendant and plaintiff in a lawsuit under that Right of Action are both located within Texas; if there's diversity, the case gets yanked to Federal Court, which is less likely to enforce Texas state law!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
