&gt; Apple has in a number of cases objected to the Justice Department’s efforts to force its cooperation through a 1789 statute known as the <i>All Writs Act</i><p>And the full (!) text of <i>All Writs Act</i> is just:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;All_Writs_Act" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;All_Writs_Act</a><p>--<p>&quot;(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue <i>all writs necessary</i> or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.<p>(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.&quot;<p>--<p>Note it&#x27;s not any law that regulates any form of encryption or communication security or what some company has to do to help some law enforcement procedures, a lot of laws with such topics were fought about, proposed, discussed and introduced through the years, like CALEA. This is just &quot;we can demand anything we want.&quot;<p>The issue is, should this Act be allowed to be used in such contexts. A precedent can even make unnecessary the current process by which the laws are being made. Note there&#x27;s nothing specific in that sentence from 1789. Who needs laws if anything goes?