Bernstein v. United States Department of State
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
974 F. Supp. 1288 (1997)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Daniel Bernstein (plaintiff) was a professor who earned his PhD in mathematics, focusing on cryptography. Cryptography was a field of mathematics that used math to keep electronic information confidential. In cryptography, a readable message would be run through a program that translated the information via an algorithm into unreadable text. That text could then be translated back into the readable message with an appropriate key. The process was used for both civilian and national security purposes. Originally, cryptography had been used only by governments to protect secrets, but it had proliferated to industry and individuals to protect their information. Bernstein had developed an encryption algorithm called Snuffle, which he had articulated in an academic paper and in source code written in computer programing language. Bernstein submitted a request to the United States Department of State (department) (defendant) to determine whether both forms of Snuffle were subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The department determined that both forms were, subjecting Snuffle to regulation prior to export. This meant that Bernstein would need to be licensed by the government to export the information before even publishing the information. Bernstein sued the department, claiming that the regulations violated the First Amendment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Patel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.