Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

SCOTUS Considers Federal Government Access to Data Stored Overseas in United States v Microsoft

Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

Date: November 21, 2017

Key Contacts

Back

United States v Microsoft: Supreme Court Considers Federal Government Access to Data Stored Overseas

The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted . Microsoft Corporation has been fighting a search warrant to produce customer e-mails that are stored on a server located in Dublin, Ireland since 2013. The high-profile data privacy case could dramatically impact U.S. businesses as well as the ability of U.S. law enforcement to obtain digital information stored overseas.

United States v Microsoft: Supreme Court Considers Federal Government Access to Data Stored Overseas
Photo courtesy of William Bout (Unsplash.com)

Microsoft’s Refusal to Comply with Warrant

On December 4, 2013, federal prosecutors obtained a search warrant to obtain information associated with a specified, web-based e-mail account that is “stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled, or operated by Microsoft Corporation, a company headquartered at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA.” The warrant was issued under the Stored Communications Act (SCA).[1]

Microsoft complied with the search warrant to the extent of producing the non-content information stored on servers in the United States. However, after it determined that the target account was hosted in Dublin and the content information stored there, Microsoft sought to quash the warrant to the extent that it directs the production of information stored abroad. The motion argued that federal courts are not authorized to issue warrants for the search and seizure of property outside the territorial limits of the United States.

The Stored Communications Act

The SCA is part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. The statute authorizes law enforcement agents to obtain information from Internet service providers (ISPs) through subpoenas, court orders, or warrants. Each legal process allows the government to obtain a specific level of data.

A warrant entitles the government to most information, including basic customer information, opened emails, records or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer, and unopened e-mails stored by the provider for less than 180 days. In order to obtain an SCA Warrant, the government must demonstrate probable cause. The relevant section of the statute provides:

A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure . . . by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Court Split on Extraterritorial Reach of SCA

U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV denied Microsoft’s motion to quash the warrant. “Even when applied to information that is stored in servers abroad, an SCA Warrant does not violate the presumption against extraterritorial application of American law,” he ruled.

In his decision, Judge Francis noted that SCA Warrants are “hybrid: part search warrant and part subpoena.” As he further explained: “The ‘warrant’ requirement of section 2703(a) cabins the power of the government by requiring a showing of probable cause not required for a subpoena, but it does not alter the basic principle that an entity lawfully obligated to produce information must do so regardless of the location of that information.”

U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska upheld the decision, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Second Circuit ruled that enforcing the warrant as to information stored abroad would constitute an impermissible extraterritorial application of the SCA. Under the Second Circuit’s reasoning, the relevant statutory focus is maintaining the privacy of a user’ s email communications and “the invasion of the customer’s privacy takes place… where the customer’s protected content “is stored — here, in the Dublin data center.” The full Second Circuit denied rehearing by a 4-4 vote.

The Supreme Court justices will specifically consider the following question on appeal from the Second Circuit:

“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.”

Potential Impact on Businesses

In its petition for certiorari, the federal government characterized the Second Circuit’s decision as “unprecedented.” It further maintained that “the decision is causing immediate, grave, and ongoing harm to public safety, national security, and the enforcement of our laws.”

However, should the Court rule in favor of the federal government, businesses could be forced to produce data to law enforcement regardless of where in the world data reside. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the SCA will not only impact email providers but also cloud-based service providers, which also frequently store data abroad.

The Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in United States v. Microsoft. However, a decision should come by the end of the term in June 2018. We encourage readers to check back for updates and contact one of our attorneys with any questions regarding how the Court’s decision may impact your operations.

Do you have any feedback, thoughts, reactions or comments concerning this topic? Feel free to leave a comment below for Fernando M. Pinguelo. If you have any questions about this post, please contact me or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work. To learn more about data privacy and security, visit eWhiteHouse Watch – Where Technology, Politics, and Privacy Collide (http://ewhwblog.com).

[1] For an in-depth analysis of the Stored Communications Act, see “Reasonable Expectations of Privacy Settings: Social Media and the Stored Communications Act,” Borchert, Pinguelo, Thaw, 13 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 36 (2015)

    No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

    Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

    Related Posts

    See all
    Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage? post image

    Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?

    Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]

    Author: Jesse M. Dimitro

    Link to post with title - "Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?"
    Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer post image

    Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer

    Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]

    Author: Jesse M. Dimitro

    Link to post with title - "Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer"
    Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC post image

    Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC

    Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]

    Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

    Link to post with title - "Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC"
    Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses post image

    Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses

    Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]

    Author: Dan Brecher

    Link to post with title - "Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses"
    What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained post image

    What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained

    What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]

    Author: Ronald S. Bienstock

    Link to post with title - "What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained"
    What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects post image

    What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects

    If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]

    Author: Patrick T. Conlon

    Link to post with title - "What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects"

    No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

    Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

    Explore What Matters Most to You.

    Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.

    Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.

    SCOTUS Considers Federal Government Access to Data Stored Overseas in United States v Microsoft

    Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

    United States v Microsoft: Supreme Court Considers Federal Government Access to Data Stored Overseas

    The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted . Microsoft Corporation has been fighting a search warrant to produce customer e-mails that are stored on a server located in Dublin, Ireland since 2013. The high-profile data privacy case could dramatically impact U.S. businesses as well as the ability of U.S. law enforcement to obtain digital information stored overseas.

    United States v Microsoft: Supreme Court Considers Federal Government Access to Data Stored Overseas
    Photo courtesy of William Bout (Unsplash.com)

    Microsoft’s Refusal to Comply with Warrant

    On December 4, 2013, federal prosecutors obtained a search warrant to obtain information associated with a specified, web-based e-mail account that is “stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled, or operated by Microsoft Corporation, a company headquartered at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA.” The warrant was issued under the Stored Communications Act (SCA).[1]

    Microsoft complied with the search warrant to the extent of producing the non-content information stored on servers in the United States. However, after it determined that the target account was hosted in Dublin and the content information stored there, Microsoft sought to quash the warrant to the extent that it directs the production of information stored abroad. The motion argued that federal courts are not authorized to issue warrants for the search and seizure of property outside the territorial limits of the United States.

    The Stored Communications Act

    The SCA is part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. The statute authorizes law enforcement agents to obtain information from Internet service providers (ISPs) through subpoenas, court orders, or warrants. Each legal process allows the government to obtain a specific level of data.

    A warrant entitles the government to most information, including basic customer information, opened emails, records or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer, and unopened e-mails stored by the provider for less than 180 days. In order to obtain an SCA Warrant, the government must demonstrate probable cause. The relevant section of the statute provides:

    A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure . . . by a court of competent jurisdiction.

    Court Split on Extraterritorial Reach of SCA

    U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV denied Microsoft’s motion to quash the warrant. “Even when applied to information that is stored in servers abroad, an SCA Warrant does not violate the presumption against extraterritorial application of American law,” he ruled.

    In his decision, Judge Francis noted that SCA Warrants are “hybrid: part search warrant and part subpoena.” As he further explained: “The ‘warrant’ requirement of section 2703(a) cabins the power of the government by requiring a showing of probable cause not required for a subpoena, but it does not alter the basic principle that an entity lawfully obligated to produce information must do so regardless of the location of that information.”

    U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska upheld the decision, but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Second Circuit ruled that enforcing the warrant as to information stored abroad would constitute an impermissible extraterritorial application of the SCA. Under the Second Circuit’s reasoning, the relevant statutory focus is maintaining the privacy of a user’ s email communications and “the invasion of the customer’s privacy takes place… where the customer’s protected content “is stored — here, in the Dublin data center.” The full Second Circuit denied rehearing by a 4-4 vote.

    The Supreme Court justices will specifically consider the following question on appeal from the Second Circuit:

    “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.”

    Potential Impact on Businesses

    In its petition for certiorari, the federal government characterized the Second Circuit’s decision as “unprecedented.” It further maintained that “the decision is causing immediate, grave, and ongoing harm to public safety, national security, and the enforcement of our laws.”

    However, should the Court rule in favor of the federal government, businesses could be forced to produce data to law enforcement regardless of where in the world data reside. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the SCA will not only impact email providers but also cloud-based service providers, which also frequently store data abroad.

    The Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in United States v. Microsoft. However, a decision should come by the end of the term in June 2018. We encourage readers to check back for updates and contact one of our attorneys with any questions regarding how the Court’s decision may impact your operations.

    Do you have any feedback, thoughts, reactions or comments concerning this topic? Feel free to leave a comment below for Fernando M. Pinguelo. If you have any questions about this post, please contact me or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work. To learn more about data privacy and security, visit eWhiteHouse Watch – Where Technology, Politics, and Privacy Collide (http://ewhwblog.com).

    [1] For an in-depth analysis of the Stored Communications Act, see “Reasonable Expectations of Privacy Settings: Social Media and the Stored Communications Act,” Borchert, Pinguelo, Thaw, 13 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 36 (2015)

    Let`s get in touch!

    * The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

    Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!

    Please select a category(s) below: