Talk:All Writs Act

The All Writs Act is becoming more important
According to the ACLU, law enforcement is using the All Writs Act to force phone companies to unlock cell phones. See Law Enforcement is Using a 226-Year-Old Law to Force Tech Companies to Unlock Mobile Phones. A summary of the act in its current form would definitely help people understand what's going on. Page Notes (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Broadly-written laws show their enduring applicability to fit modern advances and situations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sseab (talk • contribs) 14:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Applications vs. "Uses"
Wondering if "uses" is a more familiar term for readers in this context than "applications". Anyone have thoughts on this?

Response: IANAL but fairly familiar with legal terminology as a certified court interpreter. I agree that "Uses" in this context means something like what we use the word "applications" for (in this kind of context). But I'd be hesitant to explain or amplify on a legal "term of art" unless an authoritative source can be cited or, better yet, quoted word for word.Jgperez (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a good point about not redefining legal terms, @Jgperez. I was also thinking that the software applications (ie. programs) discussed in the section "Applications" (ie. times when the Writ was applied) could also be misleading. Jm3 (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Necessary and appropriate?
The article says There appears to be a difference between "and" and "or". AxelBoldt (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Necessary or appropriate in aid of jurisdiction — the writ must be necessary and appropriate to the particular case.
 * Changed "and" to "or" per the statute, the cited NYU Law Review source, and Logical connective. --50.53.34.6 (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

NY Telephone v US
Can somebody smarter than me add some historical perspective. One good place to start would be New York Telephone v. United States. But that case doesn't seem to have a page, nor does the company's page mention it. -50.59.88.46 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the case. A text search will find where "All Writs Act" is mentioned:
 * UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY.
 * 434 U.S. 159 (98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376)
 * --50.53.50.196 (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It needs a lot of help from someone smarter than I, but there's now the start of an article at United States v. New York Telephone Co.. Don't be shy! --joe deckertalk 21:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)