The Act itself is relevant as a gap filler as long as courts issue warrants, subpoenas, etc. Apple's reply brief gives the example of a court having authority u

The Act itself is relevant as a gap filler as long as courts issue warrants, subpoenas, etc. Apple's reply brief gives the example of a court having authority under the AWA to make provision for overnight housing for a prisoner whose testimony takes more than one day. Apple's main statutory argument is that the government is stretching the AWA to do something that it was never intended to do when there is more recent legislation from the 90s (CALEA) where Congress ultimately rejected giving law enforcement this power.