United States v. Microsoft

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Microsoft
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: February 27, 2018
Decided: April 17, 2018
Outcome
Second Circuit's ruling vacated and remanded
Vote
Per curiam


United Stats v. Microsoft is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on February 27, 2018. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The United States obtained a warrant for the email contents of one of Microsft's email customers. When served with the warrant, Microsoft sought to quash or void the warrant on the grounds that the content the warrant sought was stored outside of the United States. Microsoft argued that the warrant could not apply to reach outside U.S. borders. A federal district court disagreed, ordering Microsoft to comply with the warrant and sanctioning Microsoft for its initial refusal to comply. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed, ruling that the statute under which the warrant was authorized was not designed to be extraterritorial and therefore did not apply outside of the United States.[1]
  • The issue: Does a probable-cause-based warrant require an email provider to turn over emails to federal government, even when the emails are stored outside the United States[2]
  • The outcome: In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit's ruling and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case in light of Congress' passage of the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act).[3]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[1]

    Background

    Legal question

    This was a case about warrants issued under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), a part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA). The SCA "was enacted to extend to electronic records privacy protections analogous to those provided by the Fourth Amendment...[and] imposes general obligations of non‐disclosure on service providers and creates several exceptions to those obligations."[1] Section 2307 of the SCA outlines the circumstances in which the government can compel a service provider like Microsoft to disclose customer content. To obtain content without informing the customer, the government is required to secure a warrant, just as it would have to secure a warrant to search a house or office. Federal warrant rules "generally restricts the geographical reach of a warrant’s execution, if not in another federal district, to a United States territory, possession, or commonwealth, and various diplomatic or consular missions of the United States or diplomatic residences of the United States located in a foreign state."[1]

    Case background

    A federal warrant was served on Microsoft Corporation at its Washington state headquarters. The warrant directed Microsoft to produce the email contents of one of its customers. The district court summarized the chain of events:

    “ Microsoft produced its customer’s non‐content information to the government, as directed. That data was stored in the United States. But Microsoft ascertained that, to comply fully with the Warrant, it would need to access customer content that it stores and maintains in Ireland and to import that data into the United States for delivery to federal authorities. It declined to do so. Instead, it moved to quash the Warrant. The [district court]...denied the motion to quash and, in due course, the District Court held Microsoft in civil contempt for its failure.[1][4] ”


    Microsoft then appealed to the Second Circuit.

    Panel opinion

    The United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed the district court. Microsoft argued that warrants have territorial limits and that warrants issued by United States courts cannot be enforced in other countries. The government argued that territorial limits were irrelevant; it argued that the SCA warrant required Microsoft to disclose all the content covered by the warrant, regardless of the information's location.

    The court first noted, "The SCA is silent as to the reach of the statute as a whole and as to the reach of its warrant provisions in particular." Citing the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case Morrison v. National Australian Bank, Ltd., the court also noted, "The presumption against extraterritorial application of United States statutes is strong and binding...When Congress intends a law to apply extraterritorially, it gives an affirmative indication of that intent."[5] Reviewing the statutory language at issue, the court said, "We see no such indication in the SCA." The court concluded, "Congress did not intend the SCA’s warrant provisions to apply extraterritorially."[1]

    However, the court continued, that did not end the analysis. "When we find that a law does not contemplate or permit extraterritorial application, we generally must then determine whether the case at issue involves such a prohibited application." The court stated:

    “ In making this second‐stage determination, we first look to the territorial events or relationships that are the 'focus' of the relevant statutory provision. If the domestic contacts presented by the case fall within the 'focus' of the statutory provision or are the objects of the statute’s solicitude, then the application of the provision is not unlawfully extraterritorial. If the domestic contacts are merely secondary, however, to the statutory focus,' then the provision’s application to the case is extraterritorial and precluded.[1][6][4] ”


    The court concluded, "The relevant provisions of the SCA focus on protecting the privacy of the content of a user’s stored electronic communications. Although the SCA also prescribes methods under which the government may obtain access to that content...it does so in the context of a primary emphasis on protecting user content." The court ruled, "The SCA does not authorize a U.S. court to issue and enforce an SCA warrant against a United States‐based service provider for the contents of a customer’s electronic communications stored on servers located outside the United States."

    Judge Gerard Lynch concurred in the judgment but wrote separately. Lynch stated, "I write separately to clarify what, in my view, is at stake and not at stake in this case; to explain why I believe that the government’s arguments are stronger than the Court’s opinion acknowledges; and to emphasize the need for congressional action to revise a badly outdated statute."[1]

    The court reversed the district court's decision and ruled in Microsoft's favor. The government then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

    Petitioner's challenge

    The petitioner, the United States, challenged the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The government argued that the Second Circuit erred in quashing the warrant issued to Microsoft by the district court.[2]

    Certiorari granted

    On June 23, 2017, the petitioner initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted petitioner's request for certiorari on October 16, 2017. Argument in the case was held on February 27, 2018.[2]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider's control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad."[2]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit's ruling. It remanded the case with instructions for the lower court to dismiss the case as moot in light of Congress' passage of the CLOUD Act. A per curiam decision is not signed by an indiivudal justice but issued on behalf of the court as a whole. In this decision, the court wrote, "The parties now advise us that on March 23, 2018, Congress enacted and the President signed into law the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act)." The CLOUD Act requires service providers "to preserve, backup, or disclose" communication information under the provider's possession, "regardless of whether such communication, record, or other information is located within or outside of the United States." Pursuant to the CLOUD Act, the court continued, the government had obtained a new warrant that covered the information at issue in the appeal. The court concluded:

    “ No live dispute remains between the parties over the issue with respect to which certiorari was granted. Further, the parties agree that the new warrant has replaced the original warrant. This case, therefore, has become moot. Following the Court’s established practice in such cases, the judgment on review is accordingly vacated, and the

    case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit with instructions first to vacate the District Court’s contempt finding and its denial of Microsoft’s motion to quash, then to direct the District Court to dismiss the case as moot.[3][9][4]

    		”

    The text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, "Microsoft v. United States" Opinion, July 14, 2016
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "United States v. Microsoft" Question Presented, October 16, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 United States Supreme Court, "United States v. Microsoft Opinion," April 18, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Internal citations omitted.
    6. ↑ Internal citation and quotations omitted.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Sessions v. Dimaya, argued October 2, 2017
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Microsoft, argued February 27, 2018
    9. ↑ Internal citations omitted.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=United_States_v._Microsoft&oldid=8891802"