Just as the FBI's standoff with Apple seemed to be coming to a head, the government has abruptly changed course. And it may be backing down altogether from the most public battle in the growing war between law enforcement and tech firms over encryption.

On Monday afternoon, the Justice Department filed a motion for a continuance on a hearing set to happen tomorrow in Riverside, California, where it would have argued its case that Apple must help it to crack the iPhone 5C of dead San Bernardino killer Syed Rizwan Farook. The FBI hasn't given up on accessing the data in Farook's phone. But it now says it may not need Apple's assistance to crack the device after all, which it had previously told a judge it could legally compel using the 1789 law known as the All Writs Act.

"On Sunday, March 20, 2016, an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking Farook’s iPhone," the Justice Department's lawyers wrote in a court filing. "Testing is required to determine whether it is a viable method that will not compromise data on Farook’s iPhone. If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple...set forth in the All Writs Act Order in this case."

Shortly after the government's filing, the court approved the motion, canceling tomorrow's hearing. Instead, the Justice Department has asked for two more weeks to determine whether the method developed by that unnamed "outside party" is truly capable of unlocking Farook's locked phone without altering its internal data. But the government's move is already being interpreted as a decision to retreat from using the San Bernardino iPhone as the test case for whether tech companies can in fact be forced to help crack their own security measures.

If the Justice Department were to continue to press for Apple's cooperation after filing this motion, "they'll have lost a ton of credibility with the court," says Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Nate Cardozo. "I think this is a good indication that this San Bernardino fight is over...Chalk this one up as a win for Apple."

Apple lawyers called the announcement a bolt out of the blue and said in a phone call today that this was the first they had learned that the government had continued to explore other methods to get into the phone without Apple's help. They noted that the government had based its entire case on the assertion that it could not access data on the iPhone without Apple's assistance, an assertion that FBI Director James Comey had reiterated during a recent hearing. If it turns out that the government can access the phone without Apple's help then, there is no longer any basis to the case the government initially filed, the company's lawyers said.

The government's announcement today introduces a new wrinkle for the Justice Department, however. If authorities have found a software or system vulnerability into the iPhone, Apple's lawyers said they will file a motion to obtain discovery and insist on knowing everything about the method—including who the third party is that discovered it and the nature of the zero-day vulnerability.

The threat of revealing that vulnerability to Apple, however, may be the incentive that causes the government to drop the case entirely at this point, rather than have to disclose that information to Apple. The government has been heavily criticized in the past for withholding information about vulnerabilities in software so that law enforcement and intelligence agencies can use them to exploit. The White House insisted last year that it discloses about 90 percent of vulnerabilities to software makers so that they can be patched instead of exploited. But the government has also admitted that if a software hole has “a clear national security or law enforcement” use, officials may choose to keep information about the vulnerability secret in order to continue exploiting it.

And if it turns out that a third-party commercial firm discovered the vulnerability the FBI plans to use to get into the San Bernardino phone, it may be under a legal obligation not to disclose that vulnerability if it has signed a non-disclosure agreement with the company.

If the government does decide to cede the case to Apple in the iPhone standoff, it's not giving up on breaking encryption that stymies law enforcement, Cardozo clarifies. Technical experts watching the case have long believed that the FBI could in fact break into Farook's phone independently if they wished to, perhaps with the help of the NSA. And most observers of the case have guessed from the start that Farook's phone likely didn't contain much data of interest; investigators had already accessed an older backup of the phone, and admit that a metadata analysis also found no evidence of terrorist ties. The Justice Department's real motive, Apple has argued, is to set a precedent that can compel companies to assist in future cases when law enforcement can't fully access their users' data. "The FBI figured out another way in, which we knew they had or could get if they really wanted," says Cardozo. "They made a strategic decision to call off this one as the test case."

The FBI's change in tactics may partially be a result of the wave of public support Apple has received in its case, along with a slew of amicus briefs filed to the court on its behalf. Everyone from privacy activists, to law professors, to iPhone-focused hackers, to fellow tech giants including Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook made statements in Apple's defense, arguing that the software the FBI demanded Apple create represented an undue burden on the company, set a dangerous precedent, and would ultimately lead to the weakening of Americans' digital security.

Apple didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. But a Justice Department spokesperson, in a statement sent to WIRED, maintained that the agency’s move to attempt to crack Farook’s iPhone independently squares with FBI director James Comey’s earlier statement in the case that “this litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message.”

“Our top priority has always been gaining access into the phone used by the terrorist in San Bernardino. With this goal in mind, the FBI has continued in its efforts to gain access to the phone without Apple’s assistance, even during a month-long period of litigation with the company,” reads the statement from Justice Department spokesperson Melanie Newman. She added that the government is “cautiously optimistic” that this new strategy “will allow us to search the phone and continue our investigation into the terrorist attack that killed 14 people and wounded 22 people.”

Meanwhile, the broader conflict between law enforcement and tech firms whose encryption impedes government surveillance is far from over. Just last week, the New York Times revealed that Whatsapp had received a wiretap order in a non-terrorism case, and told the Justice Department that it couldn't comply due to its use of end-to-end encryption—a situation that's been interpreted as a sign that encrypted apps may be law enforcement's next target. And Congress is still likely to weigh in, too. At times during the San Bernardino iPhone standoff, both Apple and the FBI called on Congress to resolve their dispute, and an encryption-focused bill from Senators Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr has been expected for weeks.

All of that means that even if relations do warm between Apple and the FBI in the current conflict, the crypto cold war continues.

Kim Zetter contributed to this story.

Here's the full filing from the Justice Department asking the court to cancel tomorrow's hearing.

Apple vs. FBI Motion to Vacate