Hopefully the next administration isn't as openly hostile to whistle blowers as the current one (hacking AP phones) and the last one (Valerie Plame) but they will be which is why I suppose this suit is necessary.
Considering both front-runners at the current time... I wouldn't hold my breath about them not be openly hostile to whistle-blowers. They've both had lawsuits, etc. over this type of thing. (Lawsuits from them towards whistle blower types.)
Finally, someone is asking the courts to do their jobs and not rubberstamp what America's Native Criminal Class thinks should on the books.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me the case is a bit weak. The challenged provision, 1030(a)(2)(C), may be unconstitutionally vague, but there does not seem to be a genuine controversy in the facts the ACLU states against which to test it. The applicable ACLU citations that I found seem off point for the circumstances ACLU cite, and do not show uniform success. One misdemeanor conviction was overturned on appeal; one case ended with a guilty plea to conspiracy to commit fraud involving about $25 million and a misdemeanor CFAA violation; one civil case brought under 1030a(4) - intent to defraud, not 1030a(2)(C) the plaintiffs challenge - apparently succeeded, while another civil case was dismissed. It is not clear that the plaintiffs' research proposals would expose them to significant risk of either criminal civil action.
The CFAA certainly deserves significant revision, but the plaintiffs seem to want the court to do that rather than the Congress, which is the appropriate branch of government.