> The article makes it sounds like the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Wouldn't that make this California case moot? The Supreme Court issued a

> The article makes it sounds like the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Wouldn't that make this California case moot? The Supreme Court issued a (relatively) narrow ruling; the EFF is arguing that this principle can and should be applied to a broader ruling. This is a pretty standard pattern in judicial proceedings. For a number of reasons, judges are often hesitant to rule too broadly, so advocates push for successively broader rulings until they achieve their goal. (It also sometimes happens in reverse, with advocates pushing for narrower rulings, but that's a different matter).