[Cryptography] USG Moves to Vacate Apple Decrypt Order

[Jerry Leichter]

>> USG Moves to Vacate Apple Decrypt Order
>> 
>> <https://t.co/qkQflTOzru>https://cryptome.org/2016/03/usg-apple-209.pdf 
> 
> Does Apple have to respond? Can they respond? Did they respond? Would we know? Is a “Motion to Vacate” the end of this case regardless? 
Not a lawyer, but to the best of my understanding:  Apple could object if they wished, but it's highly unlikely the judge would agree to keep the case alive.  A fundamental principle in the Common Law system is that the courts restrict themselves to cases where there's an actual dispute.  Where there's (no longer) a real dispute, the case is dismissed as moot.

Some other legal traditions allow you to ask a court to rule on something that isn't currently in dispute in order to establish what the actual law is - but the Common Law frowns on that kind of thing very strongly.  Part of the reasoning:  The courts are supposed to resolve disputes by having the best arguments from both size presented and argued out.  If there's no active dispute, there's likely no one available to represent one of the sides, and any ruling that came out would be viewed with suspicion.

The restriction to "actual disputes" is also seen as a way to limit the power of courts:  They can't go off on their own and look at stuff; someone really involved has to bring things to them.

There are exceptions to this, usually from ways to keep a dispute alive through agreed tricks from both sides, but they are very unusual.

BTW, there are many examples of this principle to be found in the NSA surveillance cases.   A lawsuit was dismissed just last week - it was rendered moot because Congress changed the laws.  But many other cases have been tossed because the plaintiffs could not establish that they themselves had been surveilled, so they were considered not to have an actual dispute to be resolved.

                                                        -- Jerry