Microsoft, Justice Dept. Agree to End Digital-Privacy Case at SCOTUS
Microsoft's lawyers tell the Supreme Court that email search-warrant case is moot after passage of the new law "CLOUD Act."
April 03, 2018 at 05:10 PM
3 minute read
Microsoft office in Washington, DC, metro area. Credit: Mike Scarcella/ NLJ
Lawyers for Microsoft Corp. told the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday that they concur with the U.S. Justice Department that their dispute over law enforcement access to emails stored outside the country is now moot.
In a brief filed with the court in the case United States v. Microsoft, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner E. Joshua Rosenkranz said the Justice Department's withdrawal of the original warrant seeking emails stored in Ireland and sent by a suspected drug dealer in the United States “moots this case.”
Rosenkranz also said Microsoft did not oppose the government's request that the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit—siding with the tech company—should be vacated. But Microsoft hedged somewhat on the handling of a warrant the government issued under the CLOUD Act, the new law that clarifies the circumstances when U.S. law enforcement agencies can access data overseas.
“Microsoft will, in the ordinary course, evaluate the new warrant as it evaluates all warrants that law-enforcement entities serve on it,” Rosenkranz told the justices. Under the new law, passed and signed on March 23 as the Supreme Court was considering the case, the company could challenge the warrant on grounds of comity, possibly generating further litigation.
With the filing of the Microsoft brief, it is now up to the justices to decide whether to dismiss the case before it as moot, an outcome that appears likely. The Justice Department filed its brief suggesting mootness on March 31.
The case evolved into a major test of digital privacy and the extraterritorial reach of U.S. criminal law. But it also may have helped push Congress to pass legislation to resolve the issue, which both sides agreed should be done through legislation rather than litigation. Passage of the new law, in effect, made the litigation unnecessary.
“Microsoft has argued from the beginning of this case that Congress is the proper branch to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986,” Rosenkranz wrote. “With the CLOUD Act, Congress has now enacted a nuanced legislative scheme that both creates a modern legal framework for law-enforcement access to data across borders and expressly incentivizes the negotiation of new international agreements that balance legitimate law-enforcement interests, individual privacy rights, and foreign sovereignty.”
In a blog post Tuesday, Microsoft president and chief legal officer Brad Smith said, “Our goal has always been not to make repeated visits to court to litigate contentious propositions but to establish new international rules that will avoid legal conflicts and advance privacy rights and law enforcement needs together.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTexas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Will England Accept that Digital Assets Are ‘Property’?
- 2Congress and Courts Are Considering Litigation Financing: Is Disclosure Imminent?
- 3Bar Report — Nov. 25, 2024
- 4People in the News—Nov. 25, 2024—Eckert Seamans, Klehr Harrison
- 5How We Made Practice Group Chair: 'One of the Most Important Skills Is Being a Good Listener,' Say Timothy Kincaid and Brad Vaiana of Winston & Strawn
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250