Edited by Sudipta Rout, Nina Cherukuri
Abstract
In an era where digital encryption provides virtually impenetrable security, law enforcement's push for mandatory "backdoors" raises significant legal questions beyond the commonly debated privacy concerns. This article examines the judicial and legislative attempts to compel encryption backdoors through the lens of established legal principles. Current judicial attempts to use the All Writs Act to mandate backdoors exceed statutory authority by disregarding limitations set by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) and Congressional intent. Furthermore, this article demonstrates that encryption code is protected speech under the First Amendment, making backdoor mandates an unconstitutional form of compelled speech that fails to meet strict scrutiny standards. By analyzing key cases, including United States v. New York Tel. Co., the Apple-FBI dispute, and relevant First Amendment jurisprudence, this work argues that protecting strong encryption is not merely a technical necessity, but a constitutional imperative essential to preserving the separation of powers and protecting fundamental rights in the digital age.
