Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 6, 1999No. 97-16686Published

1DissentT.G. Nelson, Circuit Judge

Bernstein was not entitled to bring a facial First Amendment challenge to the EAR, and the district court improperly granted an injunction on the basis of a facial challenge. I therefore respectfully dissent.

The basic error which sets the majority and the district court adrift is the failure to fully recognize that the basic function of encryption source code is to act as a method of controlling computers. As defined in the EAR regulations, encryption source code is “[a] precise set of operating instructions to a computer, that when compiled, allows for the execution of an encryption function…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Roulette v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  4. Junger v. DaleyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API