from wikipedia[1], apparently there is already quite a bit of existing caselaw for the All Writs Act:<p>&quot;In the case U.S. v. New York Telephone Co. 434 U.S. 159 (1977), the Supreme Court established a three-factor test for the admissible application of the All Writs Act: the party ordered to perform an action cannot be too far removed from the case, the government&#x27;s request cannot impose an undue burden on that party, and the party&#x27;s assistance is necessary.&quot;<p>My guess would be that &quot;undue burden&quot; is probably what the judge is pondering. Possibly &quot;the party&#x27;s assistance is necessary&quot; (it doesn&#x27;t say &quot;convenient&quot;!) seems interesting in this case as well, if there are other means to break into the phone (NSA, John McAfee[2]).<p>[1]: <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>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.rt.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;333326-mcafee-interview-fbi-apple&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.rt.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;333326-mcafee-interview-fbi-apple&#x2F;</a>