| Bernstein I | |
|---|---|
| Court | United States District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Full case name | Daniel J. Bernstein et al., v. United States Department of State et al. |
| Date decided | April 15, 1996 |
| Citation(s) | 922 F. Supp. 1426 |
| Judge(s) sitting | Marilyn Hall Patel |
| Bernstein II | |
|---|---|
| Court | United States District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Full case name | Daniel J. Bernstein et al., v. United States Department of State et al. |
| Date decided | December 9, 1996 |
| Citation(s) | 945 F. Supp. 1279 |
| Judge(s) sitting | Marilyn Hall Patel |
| Bernstein III | |
|---|---|
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Full case name | Daniel J. Bernstein et al., v. United States Department of State et al. |
| Date decided | August 25, 1997 |
| Citation(s) | 176 F.3d 1132 |
| Judge(s) sitting | Betty Binns Fletcher, Myron H. Bright, Thomas G. Nelson |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel ruled for plaintiff in 974 F.Supp. 1288 |
| Case opinions | |
| Opinion by Fletcher Concurrence by Bright Dissent by Nelson |
|
Bernstein v. United States is a set of court cases brought by Daniel J. Bernstein challenging restrictions on the export of cryptography from the United States.
The case was first brought in 1995, when Bernstein was a student at University of California, Berkeley, and wanted to publish a paper and associated source code on his Snuffle encryption system. Bernstein was represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who hired outside lawyer Cindy Cohn. After four years and one regulatory change, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that software source code was speech protected by the First Amendment and that the government's regulations preventing its publication were unconstitutional.[1]
The government modified the regulations again, substantially loosening them, and Bernstein, now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, challenged them again. This time, he chose to represent himself, although he had no formal legal training. On October 15, 2003, almost nine years after Bernstein first brought the case, the judge dismissed it and asked Bernstein to come back when the government made a "concrete threat".[2]