Note that this is not the San Bernardino shooter case but just the drug case in NY.<p>Still, Judge Orenstein gave some extremely important arguments regarding the All Writs Act (AWA) that the government tries to use:<p>&quot;The plain text of the statute thus confers on all federal courts the authority to issue orders where three requirements are satisfied:
1. issuance of the writ must be &quot;in aid of&quot; the issuing court&#x27;s jurisdiction;
2. the type of writ requested must be &quot;necessary or appropriate&quot; to provide such aid to the issuing court&#x27;s jurisdiction; and
3. the issuance of the writ must be &quot;agreeable to the usages and principles of law.&quot;&quot;<p>&quot;As set forth below, I conclude that in the circumstances of this case, the government&#x27;s application does not fully satisfy the statute&#x27;s threshold requirements: although the government easily satisfies the statute&#x27;s first two elements, the extraordinary relief it seeks cannot be considered &quot;agreeable to the usages and principles of law.&quot; In arguing to the contrary, <i>the government posits a reading of the latter phrase so expansive – and in particular, in such tension with the doctrine of separation of powers – as to cast doubt on the AWA&#x27;s constitutionality if adopted.</i>&quot;<p>In short, he recognized that &quot;All Writs Act&quot; can&#x27;t mean &quot;we can order anything we want to&quot; to allow (in this case) DEA not following the laws that already exist (which specifically don&#x27;t prescribe what DEA demands from Apple).