Nice logic
"If these devices are vulnerable to attack, then the judge is absolute [sic] within their rights to call on Apple to break that encryption."
So, Apple can only resist the judge's call if they can prove these devices are invulnerable. Which, of course, cannot be proved. So, they are on the hook to exploit a hypothetical vulnerability that may not exist, or may only become apparent much later.
A lawyer might argue that: "Only if the judge can demonstrate a vulnerability that opens these devices to attack would the judge then be within their rights to call on Apple to exploit that vulnerability."
Biting the hand that feeds IT
