Blackberry exemption for government - is it fair?

I read in Computerworld that the US government, in its varied forms, might be excluded from any shutdown of RIM's Blackberry service in the US. Now, I don't live in the US, and I don't use a Blackberry (though I might get a Nokia E61 when they become available), but when I was reading this story, it made me wonder about the morality of selective application of court orders and/or laws in general.

I can see how it much be attractive for NTP to exclude government users from the action, since the US government is the only authority that might have any means of derailing the legal action against RIM. However, I would have though that "one in, all in" would be a fairer and more morale (albeit tougher) way to apply the court order.

Indeed, I can see selective application of the court order causing more problems for RIM that would a blanket application. A blanket application, from what I've read, will lead to all Blackberry users having to upgrade their firmware. Painful, but everyone would get over it together in one hit. People survived just a few years ago without Blackberries, they can probably survive a week to a month while they are upgraded.

With selective application of the court order, you can bet that government users either wouldn't upgrade their firmware, or would do so slowly. That means RIM having to manage more versions of the firmware running on the system for years to come, and multiple versions of anything always complicate the solution. So the selective application of the court order could actually make the total impact on RIM worse than would a blanket application.

I understand that legal action is allowed to be selectively applied to some people and not others. Is it moral, though? Should it be allowed to happen that way? Should the "one in, all in" rule apply? It makes me wonder.