United States v. Microsoft Corp.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 16 Oct 2017

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.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The United States v. Microsoft Corp., 2017, was a case concerning the reach of U.S. law enforcement agencies over data stored in foreign countries by American companies. The Department of Justice (DOJ) sought access to emails held on a server in Ireland as part of a drug trafficking investigation, but Microsoft argued that U.S. warrants did not apply internationally and refused to comply with the request for information. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case after lower courts issued conflicting rulings: initially, Microsoft lost but won on appeal at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that DOJ could not force companies to retrieve overseas data under Stored Communications Act (SCA). However, before any decision was made by SCOTUS, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act), which directly addressed this issue and rendered it moot - allowing US authorities access if no international agreement is violated or abuse-of-rights occurs.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Microsoft Corp., 2017 case argued that the Stored Communications Act (SCA) does not apply extraterritorially, and therefore, U.S law enforcement cannot compel Microsoft to produce emails stored on servers located outside of the country. The dissenters believed that Congress did not intend for SCA to have international application when it was enacted in 1986 because such a concept would have been unprecedented at that time. They also pointed out potential diplomatic issues arising from forcing American companies to deliver data stored overseas as it could violate foreign laws and treaties. Furthermore, they suggested this issue should be addressed by Congress rather than courts due to its complexity and global implications.