I read the article as well as the (imho much better) blog post on reason.com*, and it still feels tenuous to hope that this would be decided definitively by the Supreme Court.

In the original case the prosecution argued that the defendant’s lack of cooperation in unlocking their phone was evidence of guilt. Wouldn’t a Supreme Court ruling therefore be about whether or not a prosecutor may assert such a thing as evidence? That feels quite different from the original act of (and rights around) refusal to unlock the phone.

It’s as if the prosecution said “he had a gun, so he must be guilty!”, and hoping that the case will go to the Supreme Court to decide on the legality of the second amendment.

* https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/14/is-compelled-decryption...