Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court held a hearing to determine whether the government can force Apple to unlock an iPhone that had been encrypted with a passcode in a crime investigation.
It’s an issue that’s been the subject of intense public debate in recent years.
In addition to the ongoing court case, Apple has argued that the government has no jurisdiction to compel the company to unlock its own devices.
The government says the company can’t.
This is the first time the justices have heard an argument on the subject.
In the case of the case, a San Francisco court held that the United States government has the authority to force Apple not to unlock a phone if it has a warrant that requires the company’s assistance in unlocking a phone.
If the government does not seek a warrant before forcing Apple to decrypt a phone, the court held, the government will not be able to force it to unlock the phone without the permission of the court.
On Monday, the appeals court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld that ruling.
Apple, the company that designs iPhones, said it will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read more from FiveThirtyEight:Supreme Court Justices hear arguments on Apple vs. government issueThe decision comes as a key ruling from the U,S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco could have significant ramifications for the security of devices that the tech giants make.
Last week, the Ninth Court issued a decision that could change the way the tech companies make their devices and can force them to unlock them if they’re in danger of being stolen.
The court ruled that if Apple was in a situation where it was forced to decrypt an iPhone, it could no longer access the phone even if the phone’s owner had access to the passcode.
The ruling by the Ninth Supreme Court was not expected to affect the Apple case, but the ruling could be a blow to the tech giant, which had fought for years to get the courts to make it easier for it to decrypt its own hardware.
The appeals court did not rule on the question of whether Apple’s encryption would be considered valid for purposes of the NIST guidelines.
Apple has argued it should not have to comply with the court order because it has already been ordered to do so by the U.,S.
government, which is not a valid court order.
But that argument has not yet been persuasive.
If a judge does rule that the NIS guidelines do not apply to Apple, that could open the door for a massive expansion of the government’s authority in cases like the Apple iPhone.
The 9th Circuit decision came out of a case called Risen v.
In that case, former CIA director John Risen accused President Donald Trump of lying about a classified intelligence briefing in which the president claimed to have seen a photo of Trump holding a mock nuclear weapon.
The CIA and other intelligence agencies in the U..
Government have argued that Risen’s accusations of Trump lying about the classified briefing are without merit and should be rejected by the court, which would have the power to weigh the credibility of Trump’s claims.
The court has been very skeptical of the argument.
But if the court rules that the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s alleged lies does not have merit, it would be the first ruling that the court has ruled against the FBI, the Justice Department and the Obama administration in the Risen case.
It could be an important precedent for other government officials and companies that argue that they are not compelled to assist the government in decrypting a phone or that the law allows them to do it.
The court also could have a direct impact on the ongoing litigation over the unlocking of Samsung phones.
Samsung sued the government over the government ordering the company not to provide unlock codes for Samsung phones after the company refused to comply.
For years, Samsung has argued its phone unlocking is not subject to the National Security Letters law, which requires the government to compel companies to hand over data.
That argument has been the target of intense criticism from the tech industry and the government.
Apple argued in a court filing that it does not need to give unlock codes to unlock Samsung phones because the government already has a valid warrant.
It argued that in a hypothetical situation where the government had the right to unlock another phone, it might choose to unlock that phone as well.
The government has also argued that it has the right, even though it is not legally required, to compel Apple to provide the unlock codes.
The Justice Department said it does have the authority.