In a 50-page opinion disdainful of the government’s arguments, Orenstein found that the All Writs Act does not apply in instances where Congress had the opportunity but failed to create an authority for the government to get the type of help it was seeking, such as having firms ensure they have a way to obtain data from encrypted phones.
He wrote that the government’s interpretation of the 200-year-old law was “absurd” in that it would authorize what they were seeking even if every member of Congress had voted against granting such authority. It would, he added, undermine “the more general protection against tyranny that the Founders believed required the careful separation of governmental powers.”
He also found that ordering Apple to help the government by extracting data from the iPhone — which belonged to a drug dealer — would place an unreasonable burden on the company.
I've always liked Magistrate Judge Orenstein, who I remember as "Jamie." He was one of the federal prosecutors in the Oklahoma City bombing trials, and he and I "battled" on handwriting evidence.
I've quoted his opinions on historical cell cite data in my more recent cases. I really like when former federal prosecutors appointed to the bench don't turn out to be rubber stamps for the Department of Justice. In my experience, it doesn't happen often enough.
The NY ACLU applauds the ruling, which it published here.
This is an open thread, all topics welcome.
