Justice Dept. Hits Microsoft with New Search Warrant in SCOTUS Privacy Case
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the high court about the new warrant in a brief that also urged the justices to declare as moot the case United States v. Microsoft. The justices heard argument in February.
April 02, 2018 at 06:32 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Justice Department has obtained a new search warrant against Microsoft Corp. to obtain email content stored at a company server in Ireland, the latest move in a privacy dispute that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in February.
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the high court about the new warrant in a brief that also urged the justices to declare the case United States v. Microsoft “is now moot.”
Microsoft, represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, had challenged an earlier warrant aimed at obtaining the emails of an unnamed suspected drug dealer. The company asserted that because the data was stored outside the United States, the warrant exceeded the jurisdictional reach of the Justice Department.
Both sides in the case—as well as several justices during the February 27 argument—suggested Congress could remedy the issue of extraterritoriality if it passed a new law that balanced law enforcement needs with sovereignty concerns.
“Wouldn't it be wiser just to say, 'Let's leave things as they are,' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked during the argument. “If Congress wants to regulate in this brave new world, it should do it.” Ginsburg asked.
On March 23, Congress passed, and the president signed, a statute called the CLOUD Act that would allow law enforcement to obtain emails within a U.S. provider's control, even if the content is stored outside the United States. The law also includes a “comity analysis” that could block the warrant if, under the circumstances, the laws of the country of storage would be violated.
Francisco said the new warrant was obtained March 30, partly as a way of avoiding issues of retroactivity of the new law, and also because Microsoft did not move quickly to turn over the information sought in the original warrant after the CLOUD Act became law.
“Because Microsoft has thus far refused to comply with the original warrant,” Francisco wrote, “the government has determined that the most efficient means of acquiring the information sought is through a new warrant under the CLOUD Act.”
Francisco also urged the court to vacate the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that favored Microsoft in the dispute. Leaving the Second Circuit ruling in place would “generate uncertainty in future extraterritoriality, Fourth Amendment, or subpoena cases arising in the Second Circuit,” the motion states.
Microsoft's lawyer, Orrick partner E. Joshua Rosenkranz, on Sunday declined to comment on the government's motion, but indicated that a response would be filed with the court this week.
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 AllSupreme Court Justices Have 'Variety of Views' on Ethics, Kagan Says
Can Congress Tax Unrealized Gains as Income? Supreme Court May Decide
This Judge, Who Grew up in Miami-Dade, Just Had a Street Named After Her
Court Overturns $185M Fee Award for Quinn Emanuel in ACA Litigation
Trending Stories
- 1$34M Verdict Shows How 1 Claim Could Ratchet Up Employment Suit
- 2OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 3Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 4Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 5Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
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