Apple has officially filed a motion to reverse a court order compelling it to hack into the phone of the San Bernardino shooter.

Earlier this week, a United States court ordered Apple take the action, which the tech company described on Friday (AEDT) as against sections of the US Constitution.

Apple argued that the FBI would be able to access “hundreds” of iPhones if the decision was not reversed.

“In order to comply with the government demands, Apple would need to create a new “GovtOS” and FBI forensics lab on site that has the potential to be used on hundreds of phones now in law enforcements possession in conflict with existing law as well as the First and Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Apples court fact sheet wrote.

• The latest prank that will kill your iPhone
• Wikipedia aims to take on Google’s search engine
• The govt is reading what you post online

Apple claimed that this was the first time the government had asked a company to intentionally weaken security.

This would create a dangerous precedent it said.

According to Business Insider, the Apple executives who spoke at a media call about the case on Thursday (US time) requested anonymity.

The FBI want Apple to write a completely new software program in order to hack the phone of the San Bernardino shooter.

The California State University Fullerton student identification of Syed Farook sits on a desk.

Los Angeles Magistrate Sheri Pym ordered Apple to assist the FBI to break into an iPhone belonging to Syed Farook, one of the shooters in the December 2 attack that killed 14 people.

Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, died in a gun battle with police.

Apple CEO Tim Cook immediately denounced the decision.

Cook’s response set the scene for a legal battle between Apple and the federal government, that was tipped to have ramifications on national security and digital privacy legislation.

“Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution,” Cook wrote.

“But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.”