holding that, under the All Writs Act, “ ‘[ujnless appropriately confined by Congress, a federal court may avail itself of all auxiliary writs as aids in the performance of its duties, when the use of such historic aids is calculated to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to it.’ ... The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice ... ”
How later courts described this case
- holding that, under the All Writs Act, “ ‘[ujnless appropriately confined by Congress, a federal court may avail itself of all auxiliary writs as aids in the performance of its duties, when the use of such historic aids is calculated to achieve the ends of justice entrusted to it.’ ... The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice ... ”
- determining that “[t]he power conferred by the [All Writs] Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice ... ”
- concluding that the phone company was not “a third party so far removed from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not be permissibly compelled”
- holding that All Writs Act empowers district courts to enjoin persons “who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by United States v. Butler, 295 F. Supp. 2d 816 (2003)
434 U.S. 159, 172-73, 98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977), is inapposite.
Distinguished by In Re Mr. And Mrs. Doe, Witnesses Before the Grand Jury. Mr. And Mrs. Doe v. United States, 860 F.2d 40 (1988)
434 U.S. 159, 98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977) and arguing that the All Writs Act is inapplicable.
The opinion
Me. Justice Stewart,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that the use of pen registers is not governed by the requirements of Title III and that the District Court had authority to issue the order authorizing installation of the pen register, and so join Parts I, II, and III of the Court’s opinion. However, I agree with Mr. Justice Stevens that the District Court lacked power to order the telephone company to assist the Government in installing the pen register, and thus join Part II of his dissenting opinion.