Was Apple right to refuse to create software to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?
Apple refused to create software to bypass safeguards on the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone. The government sought compelled assistance. The order was later vacated after access was obtained without Apple, leaving the broader authority dispute unresolved.
Claim in dispute
Compelling Apple to create software bypassing iPhone safeguards would exceed the government's proper authority and threaten security beyond this investigation.
Case period: to
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
On February 16, 2016, a federal magistrate ordered Apple to assist investigators searching an identified iPhone seized in the San Bernardino investigation. The order called for bypassing auto-erasure and passcode delays and enabling electronic passcode entry. It allowed Apple to retain the software at its own facilities and identify it to that phone. Assistance order (opens in a new tab)
Apple's customer letter said it had provided existing data and engineering assistance but objected to creating new bypass software. It argued that the code and precedent could threaten users beyond this investigation. The government's February 19 motion argued that the warrant, owner consent and technical limits justified compelled assistance. Apple moved to vacate the order on February 25, challenging the statutory authority, burden and constitutional implications. Apple letter (opens in a new tab), government motion (opens in a new tab), Apple motion (opens in a new tab)
The government later reported that it had obtained access without Apple's help. On March 29, the court vacated the February 16 order and denied both the government's motion to compel and Apple's motion to vacate as moot. That ended this proceeding without a final merits ruling on whether Apple could lawfully be compelled to create the software. This is a historical dispute, not a current pending order. Signed vacatur (opens in a new tab)
Timeline
5 timeline entries on this page. Dates: February 16, 2016 to March 29, 2016
February 2016
4 events
Court orders assistance with the seized iPhone
Judge Sheri Pym directs Apple to provide specified technical assistance and permits Apple to keep the software at its own facilities.
[01]February 16 order directing Apple to assist in the San Bernardino iPhone search
The order describes safeguards to bypass on the identified phone and permits Apple to keep the software at its facilities. The order was later vacated, without a final merits ruling.
February 16 order directing Apple to assist in the San Bernardino iPhone searchED 15-451-M; three-page signed assistance orderApple publicly opposes creating bypass software
Reaction
Apple's customer letter distinguishes assistance already provided from the new software it says would create wider security risks.
[02]Apple's February 2016 customer letter opposing compelled iPhone bypass software
Cook explains Apple's refusal to create software to bypass iPhone safeguards. The letter also says Apple had provided data in its possession and engineering assistance.
Apple's February 2016 customer letter opposing compelled iPhone bypass software · Apple Inc.A Message to Our Customers; February 16, 2016Government moves to compel compliance
Reaction
The government asks the court to enforce the February 16 order after Apple's public refusal.
[03]Government moves to compel Apple's compliance after its refusal
This motion follows Apple's public refusal and argues for enforcement of the February 16 order. It presents the government's position, not a final judicial ruling.
Government moves to compel Apple's compliance after its refusal · United States Department of JusticeED No. CM 16-10 (SP); February 19 motion to compel, 35 pagesApple files its motion to vacate
Reaction
Apple challenges the court's authority to compel software creation and raises burden and constitutional arguments.
[04]Apple moves to vacate the compelled-assistance order
Apple contests the statutory authority, burden and constitutional implications of compelled software creation. Its motion was ultimately denied as moot after the assistance order was vacated.
Apple moves to vacate the compelled-assistance order · Apple Inc.ED No. CM 16-10 (SP), docket 16; motion to vacate, 47 pages
33 days between recorded events
March 2016
1 event
Court vacates the assistance order
After the government reports it no longer needs Apple's help, the court vacates the order and denies both pending motions as moot. It does not issue a final merits ruling.
[05]March 29 order vacating compelled Apple assistance and denying both motions as moot
The court vacates the February 16 order after the government's March 28 status report. Both the government motion to compel and Apple's motion to vacate are denied as moot.
March 29 order vacating compelled Apple assistance and denying both motions as mootCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP, Document 210; signed one-page order
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Compelling Apple to create software bypassing iPhone safeguards would exceed the government's proper authority and threaten security beyond this investigation.
Apple Inc.
Sources (2)
- Apple's February 2016 customer letter opposing compelled iPhone bypass software · Apple Inc.A Message to Our Customers; February 16, 2016
- Apple moves to vacate the compelled-assistance order · Apple Inc.ED No. CM 16-10 (SP), docket 16; motion to vacate, 47 pages
Arguments
Documented position
Apple's customer letter and February 25 motion
Creating the code could set a precedent beyond one phone
Apple argues that compelled software creation differs from providing information it already possesses. It warns that the code and legal precedent could be used in other cases and compromise users' security.
Limit of this argument
The order allowed Apple to retain the software and tie it to an identified phone; the broader risk was disputed, not proven by the order alone.
Read sources and related claim
Related claim
Compelling Apple to create software bypassing iPhone safeguards would exceed the government's proper authority and threaten security beyond this investigation.
Sources
- Apple's February 2016 customer letter opposing compelled iPhone bypass software · Apple Inc.A Message to Our Customers; February 16, 2016
- Apple moves to vacate the compelled-assistance order · Apple Inc.ED No. CM 16-10 (SP), docket 16; motion to vacate, 47 pages
- February 16 order directing Apple to assist in the San Bernardino iPhone searchED 15-451-M; three-page signed assistance order
Documented position
Government's February 19 motion
A warrant and technical limits justify assistance
The government argues that a valid search warrant, the phone owner's consent and limited technical assistance justified enforcing the order. It disputes Apple's account of the burden and scope.
Limit of this argument
The request required Apple to create software, and the proceeding ended without a merits ruling that settled the disputed authority.
Read sources and related claim
Related claim
Compelling Apple to create software bypassing iPhone safeguards would exceed the government's proper authority and threaten security beyond this investigation.
Sources
- Government moves to compel Apple's compliance after its refusal · United States Department of JusticeED No. CM 16-10 (SP); February 19 motion to compel, 35 pages
- February 16 order directing Apple to assist in the San Bernardino iPhone searchED 15-451-M; three-page signed assistance order
- March 29 order vacating compelled Apple assistance and denying both motions as mootCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP, Document 210; signed one-page order
Response record
Responses
Latest recorded positions: 9. Dates: February 16, 2016 to March 10, 2016
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
9 responses on this page
United States Department of JusticeU.S. Department of Justice, brief filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of CaliforniaDirectly involved"Apple’s rhetoric is not only false, but also corrosive of the very institutions that are best able to safeguard our liberty and our rights"
CondemnedCase context: Was Apple right to refuse to create software to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?
Read more
In its reply brief, DOJ criticizes Apple's rhetoric and argues that the court can compel the company to assist in unlocking the phone.
Before the statement
The government's reply opposes Apple's motion to vacate the February 16 assistance order.
After the statement
The brief argues that the All Writs Act and precedent permit the court to compel Apple's assistance.
DOJ reply opposing Apple's motion to vacate the San Bernardino assistance order · United States Department of JusticeCase 5:16-cm-00010-SP, document 149, March 10, 2016; introduction, PDF pages 9-10Why this label?
The case concerns Apple's refusal to create bypass software. DOJ condemns that resistance by criticizing its supporting rhetoric and asking the court to reject Apple's motion to vacate.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Center for Democracy & TechnologyCenter for Democracy & Technology, institutional legal position"The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) has filed an amicus brief in support of Apple in its challenge to the FBI order"
Defended or excusedCase context: Was Apple right to refuse to create software to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?
Read more
CDT says its brief supports Apple because an order to create software defeating its own security exceeds the All Writs Act and would reduce trust in connected devices.
Before the statement
CDT announced a brief in the San Bernardino case supporting Apple's challenge.
After the statement
CDT says it will challenge rulings that would allow the government to compel companies to weaken their products' security.
CDT Files Brief in Support of Apple - Center for Democracy and Technology · Center for Democracy & TechnologyStatement textWhy this label?
CDT argues that forcing Apple to defeat its security measures is legally impermissible and would undermine device security. This supplies a legal and security defense of Apple's refusal to create bypass software.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
MicrosoftMicrosoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith"By standing with Apple, we’re standing up for customers who depend on us to keep their most private information safe and secure."
Defended or excusedCase context: Was Apple right to refuse to create software to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?
Read more
Microsoft's Brad Smith says its brief supporting Apple protects customers' private information. He argues that Congress should address modern technology rather than rely on the All Writs Act.
Before the statement
Smith explains Microsoft's participation in a legal brief supporting Apple.
After the statement
He calls for laws suited to mobile and cloud technologies and recognizes law enforcement's public role.
Our legal brief in support of Apple - Microsoft On the Issues · MicrosoftStatement textWhy this label?
The case concerns Apple's refusal to create bypass software. Microsoft supports Apple's position and argues that Congress should pass modern laws addressing technology and privacy.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Federal Bureau of InvestigationFBI Director James ComeyDirectly involved"We don’t want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land."
Challenged the characterizationCase context: Was Apple right to refuse to create software to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?
Read more
The FBI's James Comey says investigators want to attempt passcodes under a warrant and are not seeking to break encryption or create a master key.
Before the statement
Comey describes the relief sought in the San Bernardino litigation as narrow and limited.
After the statement
He says the broader balance between privacy and safety should be decided by the American people.
FBI publishes James Comey's San Bernardino letter · Federal Bureau of InvestigationStatement textWhy this label?
Relative to Apple's refusal, Comey challenges descriptions of the requested assistance as breaking encryption or creating a master key. He emphasizes the request's limited scope.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
- United States Department of JusticeU.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of CaliforniaDirectly involved
"Action: Filed a motion asking the court to compel Apple to comply with its February 16 assistance order."
CondemnedResponding to: Compelling Apple to create software bypassing iPhone safeguards would exceed the government's proper authority and threaten security beyond this investigation.
Read more
The government asks the court to enforce the assistance order, arguing that the warrant and technical limits justify the requested help.
Before the statement
Apple had publicly objected to creating the requested bypass software after the February 16 order.
After the statement
The government argues the request is limited to the identified phone. The order was later vacated after access was obtained without Apple.
Government moves to compel Apple's compliance after its refusal · United States Department of JusticeED No. CM 16-10 (SP); February 19 motion to compel, 35 pagesWhy this label?
The motion rejects Apple's refusal and seeks to compel the conduct it withheld. It follows the company's public opposition.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Human Rights WatchHuman Rights Watch, institutional human-rights commentary"Apple’s resistance to helping it hack the San Bernardino shooter’s phone isn’t about privacy for mass murderers, and isn’t about one phone."
Challenged the characterizationCase context: Was Apple right to refuse to create software to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?
Read more
Human Rights Watch argues that Apple's resistance concerns users' safety worldwide, while recognizing the importance of investigating the San Bernardino attack.
Before the statement
The article discusses the order directing Apple to create a way around the phone's security.
After the statement
It argues that governments elsewhere could demand similar capabilities and put users at risk.
Human Rights Watch argues Apple's refusal protects users · Human Rights WatchStatement textWhy this label?
Human Rights Watch challenges the portrayal of Apple's resistance as privacy for mass murderers or as limited to one phone. It describes the resistance as concerning every technology user's safety.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Show fewer responses
American Civil Liberties UnionAmerican Civil Liberties Union, represented by staff attorney Alex Abdo in its official release"Apple deserves praise for standing up for its right to offer secure devices to all of its customers."
Defended or excusedCase context: Was Apple right to refuse to create software to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?
Read more
ACLU's Alex Abdo praises Apple's stand for secure devices and says compelled access could set a dangerous precedent.
Before the statement
ACLU announced support for Apple's legal fight against the order to help unlock the San Bernardino iPhone.
After the statement
The statement does not report a subsequent ruling on Apple's challenge.
ACLU comment on the San Bernardino iPhone unlocking order · American Civil Liberties UnionAlex Abdo's comment in ACLU's February 17 releaseWhy this label?
ACLU expressly praises Apple's resistance and argues that the company must remain free to offer secure devices. This defends Apple's refusal to create the requested bypass software.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Electronic Frontier FoundationElectronic Frontier Foundation, article by Kurt Opsahl"EFF applauds Apple for standing up for real security and the rights of its customers."
Defended or excusedCase context: Was Apple right to refuse to create software to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?
Read more
EFF praises Apple's resistance to the order and says creating bypass software could lead to wider demands to weaken device security.
Before the statement
EFF discusses the order requiring Apple to create new software to bypass security protections.
After the statement
It announces plans for an amicus brief supporting Apple's position.
EFF to Support Apple in Encryption Battle | Electronic Frontier Foundation · Electronic Frontier FoundationStatement textWhy this label?
EFF supports Apple's refusal because it considers the requested bypass a threat to customers' security and rights.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Apple Inc.Company statement signed by CEO Tim CookDirectly involved "We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government."
Defended or excusedResponding to: Compelling Apple to create software bypassing iPhone safeguards would exceed the government's proper authority and threaten security beyond this investigation.
Read more
Apple argues that the requested software and precedent could weaken security beyond the seized phone. It distinguishes new software creation from the assistance it had already provided.
Before the statement
A court had ordered assistance with a seized iPhone in the San Bernardino investigation.
After the statement
Apple says it supplied data in its possession and engineering advice, but objects to creating software that would bypass safeguards.
Apple's February 2016 customer letter opposing compelled iPhone bypass software · Apple Inc.A Message to Our Customers; February 16, 2016Why this label?
The company justifies its refusal to create the bypass software, the conduct addressed by this case.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(12)
Original text
February 16 order directing Apple to assist in the San Bernardino iPhone search
Relevant passage: ED 15-451-M; three-page signed assistance order
About this source
The order describes safeguards to bypass on the identified phone and permits Apple to keep the software at its facilities. The order was later vacated, without a final merits ruling.
- Author
- U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
ACLU comment on the San Bernardino iPhone unlocking order
Relevant passage: Alex Abdo's comment in ACLU's February 17 release
About this source
ACLU's official release announces support for Apple's legal challenge and carries Alex Abdo's comment.
- Author
- Alex Abdo
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
DOJ reply opposing Apple's motion to vacate the San Bernardino assistance order
Relevant passage: Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP, document 149, March 10, 2016; introduction, PDF pages 9-10
About this source
Original government reply brief opposing Apple's motion to vacate the compelled-assistance order. The filed court document is reproduced by Just Security.
- Author
- U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
EFF to Support Apple in Encryption Battle | Electronic Frontier Foundation
Relevant passage: Statement text
About this source
EFF's statement supporting Apple in the San Bernardino encryption dispute.
- Author
- Kurt Opsahl
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Human Rights Watch argues Apple's refusal protects users
Relevant passage: Statement text
About this source
Human Rights Watch commentary on Apple's resistance to the San Bernardino order.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
CDT Files Brief in Support of Apple - Center for Democracy and Technology
Relevant passage: Statement text
About this source
CDT's account of the arguments in its brief supporting Apple.
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Our legal brief in support of Apple - Microsoft On the Issues
Relevant passage: Statement text
About this source
Microsoft's explanation of its brief supporting Apple.
- Author
- Brad Smith
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
FBI publishes James Comey's San Bernardino letter
Relevant passage: Statement text
About this source
FBI publication of Director James Comey's letter about the San Bernardino litigation.
- Author
- James Comey
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
March 29 order vacating compelled Apple assistance and denying both motions as moot
Relevant passage: Case 5:16-cm-00010-SP, Document 210; signed one-page order
About this source
The court vacates the February 16 order after the government's March 28 status report. Both the government motion to compel and Apple's motion to vacate are denied as moot.
- Author
- U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Apple moves to vacate the compelled-assistance order
Relevant passage: ED No. CM 16-10 (SP), docket 16; motion to vacate, 47 pages
About this source
Apple contests the statutory authority, burden and constitutional implications of compelled software creation. Its motion was ultimately denied as moot after the assistance order was vacated.
- Author
- Counsel for Apple Inc.
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Government moves to compel Apple's compliance after its refusal
Relevant passage: ED No. CM 16-10 (SP); February 19 motion to compel, 35 pages
About this source
This motion follows Apple's public refusal and argues for enforcement of the February 16 order. It presents the government's position, not a final judicial ruling.
- Author
- U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Apple's February 2016 customer letter opposing compelled iPhone bypass software
Relevant passage: A Message to Our Customers; February 16, 2016
About this source
Cook explains Apple's refusal to create software to bypass iPhone safeguards. The letter also says Apple had provided data in its possession and engineering assistance.
- Author
- Tim Cook, Apple
- Published
- Accessed
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Was Apple right to refuse to create software to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/apple-fbi-san-bernardino-iphone-bypass-software
The Dispute Index. "Was Apple right to refuse to create software to unlock the San Bernardino iPhone?". First published: 2026-10-11. Last updated: 2026-10-11. https://disputeindex.com/cases/apple-fbi-san-bernardino-iphone-bypass-software