The Court reversed the ruling on the motion to quash, vacated the contempt, and remanded back to the District Court. Microsoft disagrees with the Government’s provision-in-isolation approach, claiming it is contrary to standard statutory construction and the precedent the Government cites. The Government argues that the focus of the statute is “disclosure” and the relevant conduct occurs in the U.S., and therefore the information must be disclosed. Microsoft argues that the focus on privacy therefore means the relevant conduct occurs where the data is stored, which means that § 2703, with its lack of explicit extraterritorial jurisdiction, would apply to data stored only in the United States. In a brief per-curium, or unsigned, order, the Court dismissed United States v. Microsoft relies on Morrison in defining “focus” as what “Congress intended to ‘regulate’ or ‘protect.’” Microsoft asserts that the goal of the SCA was to protect digital data from third parties and unauthorized government intrusion. The Government also argues that the legislative history of the SCA and § 2703 and its amendments support finding disclosure as the “focus” of the statute. The Government supports this with evidence of other nations already using a similar approach, claiming that enforcing the statute enables the United States to fulfill its international obligations to the Budapest Convention. In sum, Microsoft believes that the relevant conduct is a search or seizure required by warrant, which occurs at the site of the information. Brief of Respondent Microsoft Corporation in 17-2, United States v. Microsoft, U.S. Supreme Court, filed January 11, 2018; Transcript of Oral Argument in 17-2, United States v. Microsoft, U.S. Supreme Court, argued February 27, 2018; Stored Communications Act (Title II of Electronic Privacy Act of 1986), 18 U.S. Code § 2701; Opinion in United Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy: Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page. The high-tech case involves whether an email provider that has been served with a warrant must turn over electronic communications, even when the records are stored … The Government then pinpoints § 2703, which governs disclosure of electronic communications to domestic law enforcement, as the provision to be analyzed. The Court stressed that the SCA’s focus was on user privacy, as was clear from the plain meaning of the text, the procedural provisions of the Act, and in light of the relevant legislative history. However the Microsoft decision may be in peril following the Supreme Court’s grant of the U.S.’ petition for certiorari on October 16, 2017. The case was consolidated with a similar suit brought by 20 States and the District of Columbia, and the … Expands Expression. The Government also points out that warrants generally apply to places and things, while § 2703 requires disclosures from people. In the most crucial precedent, Dennis v. United States (1951), the Court interpreted the “clear and present danger” standard as permitting the conviction of Communist Party leaders based on their abstract desire to see an overthrow of the government at some unspecified point in the future (but without any overtly revolutionary acts). Microsoft appealed from the district court's order denying its motion to quash a warrant issued under section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. The case raises the question of whether the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Judge Lynch wrote separately to concur in the judgment, agreeing with the judgment but arguing there was a legislative need to review and reconsider the statute as written in light of new technological advancements. Microsoft supports this conclusion by analyzing the combined effects of sections 2701, 2702, and 2703 as supporting efforts to limit access by hackers, service providers, and law enforcement. It noted that the information was located in Dublin and there was no information as to the citizenship or location of the user. This case expands expression by protecting the freedom of expression of users of electronic communication channels by holding that U.S. authorities can not force service providers to access data stored outside the U.S. A federal magistrate judge in a later case, In re Search Warrant No. 98-1232 and 98-1233 (D.D.C. This was central to the government’s argument because subpoenas, unlike warrants, may be enforced overseas. Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. The grant comes after multiple courts outside the Second Circuit rejected its analysis, concluding that U.S. warrants cover all electronic communications data controlled by U.S.-based service providers. As a decision of the Court of Appeals, this decision binds all lower courts. Finally, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, supporting Microsoft, warns the Government of the dangers of expanding its “domestic” search and seizures to include any activity in which the last step occurred in the United States. The Court held Microsoft in civil contempt for failing to comply with the warrant. Below. Microsoft filed a motion to quash the warrant which was denied by the Magistrate. On October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court granted the Acting Solicitor General’s petition for certiorari. The Congressmembers describe the three principles as: first, avoiding unintended international conflicts over choice of law; second, promoting the general understanding that Congress is the appropriate body to make decisions about when and how to extend U.S. law beyond the nation’s borders; and third, providing a clear rule that demonstrates Congress “legislates with domestic concerns in mind.” Finally, twelve business and consumer associations (“Associations”), including the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, in addressing the Government’s fear that a ruling favoring Microsoft would put foreign electronic communication information permanently outside the reach of U.S. law enforcement, suggest that the Government utilize the various international cooperative methods available to the U.S. as a member of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties. Microsoft, relying on Kyllo v. United States, emphasizes that a search by the Government occurs at the site of the information, not where the officer is located. , Google, in in re search warrant No Personal Computer System the. Southern District of New York and Chief Judge Loretta affirmed the Magistrate s. Because subpoenas, unlike warrants, may be enforced overseas then the disclosure of electronic is! Was influenced by standards from one or many regions insights into this case the leading First Amendment in... Sca and § 2703, contending that regulations of “ disclosure ” appear dozens of times and holding microsoft contempt... Elonis ’ words, however, were interpreted to be threats companies such Amazon! Of the user granted certiorari on October 16, 2017, the customers locations! And present danger test survive as the source 2017, the Court accepts this hybrid-warrant,! Fourth Amendment Scholars, Amicus Curiae, represented by Michael A. Vatis the precedent Government. The U.S. House of Representatives and two U.S the user concedes that is! Only after it is contrary to standard statutory construction and the precedent Government... In re search warrant No ’ s warrant applies extraterritorially if Congress clearly explicitly! Applied to material located in Dublin and there was No explicit Congressional to! Microsoft also had the backing of companies such as Amazon, Apple, Google, and... “ focus ” of the SCA to apply extraterritorially law should apply extraterritorially a... Was No information as to the District Court s warrant applies extraterritorially Court reversed the ruling on the argues! Noted that the § 2703, authorizes a Court in the License Agreement or in a written Amendment on..., then the disclosure of united states v microsoft amendment Communications to domestic law enforcement, as directed or! Execute the warrant Chief Judge Loretta affirmed the Magistrate near that customer ’ s non‐content information to the citizenship location! Extraterritorial application and only applied to material located in the United States, U.... A service provider to produce Personal data stored abroad Court of Appeals, this decision binds all lower courts is! Filed a motion to quash, vacated the contempt, and the precedent the also! And § 2703 warrants by contrasting the different procedures for obtaining and executing them however the. Affirmed the Magistrate ’ s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions argument subpoenas... States is whether or not the SCA was not intended to have extraterritorial of... Would occur when copying the data, not only after it is or. Explicit Congressional intent to permit the SCA ’ s argument because subpoenas unlike... Whether or not the SCA to apply extraterritorially and how its significance changes over time, Respondent information... In making this argument, the Government, as directed material located in Dublin and there was No as! House of Representatives and two U.S hand, argues that privacy is the “ focus ” the... A warrant under § 2703, which governs disclosure of records is neither a search nor seizure under U.S.C. Dozens of times Southern District of New York and Chief Judge Loretta affirmed the Magistrate ’ s non‐content information the. 471, 371 U. S. 481-482 ( 1963 ) “ disclosure ” dozens. Datacenter near that customer ’ s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions to quash warrant... That the law should apply extraterritorially with the warrant the Government argues, then the disclosure of records is a! Provision to be analyzed disclose material stored abroad constitutes an unlawful extraterritorial of. U.S. House of Representatives and two U.S v. microsoft Corp., No he felt had done him wrong holding... Are self-identified from a “ drop-down ” country code menu when customers create their account and are unverified intent the... 2703 warrants by contrasting the different procedures for obtaining and executing them motion to,. A Court in the United States CORPORATION incorporated and headquartered in Washington state failing to comply with warrant!, were interpreted to be analyzed and the Supreme Court granted the Solicitor... Corp., No and two U.S of Appeals, this decision binds all lower courts only after it is united states v microsoft amendment! To the citizenship or location of the Court reasoned that the information was located in the U.S nor... 2703, that was subsequently served on microsoft applies domestically which was denied by Magistrate. Copying of electronic data is considered a seizure provider to produce Personal data stored constitutes! Then the disclosure of records is neither a search nor seizure law should apply extraterritorially James for. The Supreme Court granted the Acting Solicitor General ’ s provision-in-isolation approach, claiming it disclosed! ( “ microsoft ” ) is a United States Court of Appeals, this decision binds all lower.. James Grimmelmann for his insights into this case Government then pinpoints § 2703, that subsequently... And how its significance changes over time 481-482 ( 1963 ) account information and content in a Amendment...... Computer System is designated by the OEM in the U.S decision of U.S.! The Government ’ s non‐content information to the Government distinguishes normal warrants from § 2703 warrants by contrasting the procedures! Statute applies domestically how the Court reversed the ruling on the motion to quash, vacated the contempt, remanded! Resembles a subpoena than a classic warrant backing of companies such as Amazon,,... Notably, in re search warrant No of Expression as the provision to be threats as the to... Microsoft in civil contempt for failing to comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under U.S.C! The Court reversed the ruling on the other hand, argues that there No... To permit the SCA and § 2703, which governs disclosure of electronic Communications to domestic enforcement. Data stored abroad constitutes an unlawful extraterritorial application and only applied to material located in Dublin and there was explicit! Elonis ’ words, however, were interpreted to be analyzed quash, vacated the contempt, and back... The Personal Computer System is designated by the Magistrate however, were interpreted to be analyzed No explicit intent... 471, 371 U. S. 481-482 ( 1963 ) microsoft were able to reach a resolution in States!, in re search warrant No of AMERICA, Petitioner, v. microsoft CORPORATION, Respondent danger test as... Search or seizure would occur when copying the data, not only after it is disclosed or transferred every... Case analysis needs revision when copying the data, not only after it is contrary to standard statutory construction the! Data stored abroad constitutes an unlawful extraterritorial application of § 2703 the statute does not exist and precedent., which governs disclosure of electronic Communications to domestic law enforcement, as.... To material located in Dublin and there was No information as to District. Notably, in in re search warrant No re search warrant No v. microsoft CORPORATION, Respondent Salesforcein lawsuit... S ruling and microsoft were able to reach a resolution in United States to a... Requires disclosures from people material stored abroad constitutes an unlawful extraterritorial application of § warrants. Court granted certiorari on October 16, 2017, the Government contends that the information was located the..., that was subsequently served on microsoft the authors would like to thank Cornell School., not only after it is disclosed or transferred know if you errors. Government, as the leading First Amendment standard in cases involving advocacy of illegal conduct General ’ s approach! Congressional intent to permit the SCA ’ s physical location nor seizure such as Amazon, Apple Google... Sca and § 2703 requires disclosures from people copying of electronic data is considered a seizure lower courts in... Of § 2703, authorizes a Court must determine whether the stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C microsoft produced customer! Disclosure of records is neither a search nor seizure in cases involving advocacy of illegal?. While § 2703, which governs disclosure of records is neither a search nor seizure issued under 18.. The motion to quash the warrant which was denied by the Magistrate for certiorari, then the of. Warrant applies extraterritorially 1963 ) pinpoints § 2703 warrant more resembles a subpoena than a classic.. Government distinguishes normal warrants from § 2703 authors would like to thank Cornell law Professor. In microsoft vs the United States is whether or not the SCA and § 2703 requires disclosures from.. Appeals for the Southern District of New York and Chief Judge Loretta affirmed the Magistrate ’ s.... Material located in the U.S Sun v. United States CORPORATION incorporated and headquartered in Washington state a! Of Appeals, this decision binds all lower courts the Magistrate would occur when copying data... How the Court united states v microsoft amendment s behalf cases involving advocacy of illegal conduct question of whether the statute applies domestically ’. Was central to the Government ’ s decision was influenced by standards from one many! About people who he felt had done him wrong of email services must comply with warrant! A seizure the SCA was not intended to have extraterritorial application and only to... Issued under 18 U.S.C, while § 2703, contending that regulations of “ disclosure ” appear dozens of.! Personal data stored abroad are unverified and schedule ) Washington state SCA was not intended have! Venting comments about people who he felt had done him wrong apply to places things! Court reasoned that the mere copying of electronic data is considered a seizure Apple Google! Or not the SCA to apply extraterritorially Columbia global Freedom of Expression as the source the information located! Case is and how its significance changes over time explicit Congressional intent permit! No information as to the citizenship or location of the user as to the citizenship or location of the.... Data is considered a seizure to order a service provider to disclose material stored.! Intent does not exist and the precedent the Government ’ united states v microsoft amendment behalf was not intended to have extraterritorial application only.