United States v. Microsoft Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 17–2.,17–2. |
| Citation | 138 S.Ct. 1186,200 L.Ed.2d 610 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, John P. Cronan, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Morgan L. Goodspeed, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Ross B. Goldman, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Bradford L. Smith, David M. Howard, Julie Brill, John Frank, Jonathan Palmer, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, James M. Garland, Alexander A. Berengaut, Lauren K. Moxley, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Robert M. Loeb, Brian P. Goldman, Evan M. Rose, Hannah Garden–Monheit, Alec Schierenbeck, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, for Respondent.
The Court granted certiorari in this case to decide whether, when the Government has obtained a warrant under 18 U.S.C. § 2703, a U.S. provider of e-mail services must disclose to the Government electronic communications within its control even if the provider stores the communications abroad. 583 U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 356, 199 L.Ed.2d 261 (2017).
In December 2013, federal law enforcement agents applied to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for a § 2703 warrant requiring Microsoft to disclose all e-mails and other information associated with the account of one of its customers. Satisfied that the agents had demonstrated probable cause to believe that the account was being used to further illegal drug trafficking, a Magistrate Judge issued the requested § 2703 warrant. App. 22–26. The warrant directed Microsoft to disclose to the Government the contents of a specified e-mail account and all other records or information associated with the account "[t]o the extent that the information ... is within [Microsoft's] possession, custody, or control." Id., at 24.
After service of the § 2703 warrant, Microsoft determined that the account's e-mail contents were stored in a sole location: Microsoft's datacenter in Dublin, Ireland. Id., at 34. Microsoft moved to quash the warrant with respect to the information stored in Ireland. The Magistrate Judge denied Microsoft's motion. In re Warrant To Search a Certain E–Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 15 F.Supp.3d 466 (S.D.N.Y.2014). The District Court, after a hearing, adopted the Magistrate Judge's reasoning and affirmed his ruling. See In re Warrant To Search a Certain E–Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197, 204–205 (C.A.2 2016). Soon after, acting on a stipulation submitted jointly by the parties, the District Court held Microsoft in civil contempt for refusing to comply fully with the warrant. Id., at 205. On appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the denial of the motion to quash and vacated the civil contempt finding, holding that requiring Microsoft to disclose the electronic communications in question would be an unauthorized extraterritorial application of § 2703. Id., at 222.
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), as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. 115–141. The CLOUD Act amends the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
...lease data storage that is permanently, or even occasionally, located in South Dakota. Cf. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 584 U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1186, 200 L.Ed.2d 610 (2018) (per curiam ). What may have seemed like a "clear," "bright-line tes[t]" when Quill was written now threatens to......
-
Texas v. Biden
...too did DHS's October 29 Memoranda cure any legal defects in the June 1 Memorandum. See United States v. Microsoft Corp. , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1186, 1187–88, 200 L.Ed.2d 610 (2018) (per curiam) (holding, like Lewis , that an intervening change in a statute mooted a case). So any chall......
-
Combier v. Portelos
...web-based email opens an email, that email is no longer in "electronic storage"), vacated on other grounds sub nom. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 138 S.Ct. 1186 (2018). Likewise, the pleading contains no allegations from which the Court could infer that defendants accessed a backup copy......
-
United States v. Loera
...Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 829 F.3d 197, 220 (2d Cir. 2016), vacated and remanded sub nom., United States v. Microsoft Corp., ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1186, 200 L.Ed.2d 610 (2018), concluding that the Government had seized a customer's data when Microsoft moved the data from a foreig......
-
COMPUTER CRIMES
...Wiretap Act,398 or the SCA.399 385. 18 U.S.C. § 2713. 386. MULLIGAN, supra note 307, at 7; see also United States v. Microsoft Corp., 138 S. Ct. 1186, 1188 (2018) (remanding with instructions to dismiss as moot after passage of the CLOUD Act). 387. 18 U.S.C. § 2703(h). 388. 18 U.S.C. § 2701......
-
Computer Crimes
...supplanted . . . .”). 397. 398. See MULLIGAN, supra note 321, at 1–2. 399. Id. at 6–8; see also United States v. Microsoft Corp., 138 S. Ct. 1186, 1188 (2018) (remanding with instructions to dismiss as moot after second warrant was obtained pursuant to the passage of the CLOUD Act). 400. 18......
-
Search and Seizure: Property
...information is located within or outside of the United States.” CLOUD Act §103(a)(1). See U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 1186, 1187-8, 200 L.Ed.2d 610 (2018). §2:60 Motions to Suppress Evidence CCP Art. 28.01 §(1)(6) provides that “. . . [w] hen a hearing on the moti......
-
Computer Crimes
...other exception to the Wiretap Act, 398 or the SCA. 399 386. MULLIGAN, supra note 307, at 7; see also United States v. Microsoft Corp., 138 S. Ct. 1186, 1188 (2018) (remanding with instructions to dismiss as moot after second warrant was obtained pursuant to the passage of the CLOUD Act). 3......