U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of Brooklyn does not have the power to bind other courts. The 50-page opinion he issued Monday, denying the Justice Department's application for an order under the All Writs Act to compel Apple to help the government unlock the phone of a convicted drug dealer, will not end the California federal court showdown between Apple and the Justice Department over an iPhone belonging to San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook. Orenstein's decision isn't even the last word in the Brooklyn case — the Justice Department on Monday said that it will ask for the order to be overturned by a district court judge.

But Orenstein's opinion is a milestone in the ongoing debate over privacy and national security. He is the first federal judge to analyze the reach of the All Writs Act in the age of the smartphone, yet he roots his discussion not in technological terms but in fundamental U.S. constitutional principles.

Orenstein's conclusions do not rely on the specific facts of the case before him or on the particulars of the operating system at issue. They are based on his reading of constitutional and congressional history, providing broad context for his assertion of government overreaching. Judges considering contested All Writs Act requests in other courts may differ with Orenstein but they ought not ignore him.