No. 17-2 · decided April 17, 2018 · 584 U. S. 236

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

United States v. Microsoft Corporation. No separate writings.

Set from the PDF the Court published, which is the authoritative text. The small starred numbers are that PDF’s page numbers. A conversion can introduce errors; check a quotation against the original.

Syllabus

Prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader; it is no part of the opinion of the Court.

Federal law enforcement agents sought a warrant under 18 U. S. C. § 2703, requiring respondent Microsoft Corp. to disclose all e-mails and other information associated with a customer’s account that the agents believed was being used to further illegal drug trafficking. A Magistrate Judge issued the warrant, which Microsoft moved to quash with respect to account information stored at its datacenter in Dublin, Ireland. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion. The District Court affirmed and held Microsoft in contempt for failing to fully comply with the warrant. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that such disclosure would be an unauthorized extraterritorial application of § 2703. Congress subsequently enacted the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act which required service providers to disclose customer information under § 2703, regardless whether such information is located outside the United States. The Government then obtained a new warrant covering the information at issue.

Held: Because no live dispute remains between the parties over the issue on which certiorari was granted, this case is moot. The judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Second Circuit with instructions to vacate the District Court’s contempt finding and denial of Microsoft’s motion to quash, and to direct the District Court to dismiss the case as moot.

829 F. 3d 197, vacated and remanded.

Notes

*
A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the State of Vermont et al. by Thomas J. Donovan, Attorney General of Vermont, Benjamin D. Battles, Solicitor General, and Eleanor L. P. Spottswood and Evan P. Meenan, Assistant Attorneys General, by Kevin T. Kane, Chief State’s Attorney of Connecticut, and by the Attorneys General of their respective jurisdictions as follows: Steve Marshall of Alabama, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Cynthia H. Coffman of Colorado, Matthew P. Denn of Delaware, Pamela Jo Bondi of Florida, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Curtis T. Hill, Jr., of Indiana, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Derek Schmidt of Kansas, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Janet T. Mills of Maine, Brian E. Frosh of Maryland, Maura Healey of Massachusetts, Bill Schuette of Michigan, Lori Swanson of Minnesota, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Timothy C. Fox of Montana, Doug Peterson of Nebraska, Adam Paul Laxalt of Nevada, Christopher S. Porrino of New Jersey, Hector H. Balderas of New Mexico, Eric T. Schneiderman of New York, Josh Stein of North Carolina, Michael DeWine of Ohio, Mike Hunter of Oklahoma, Ellen F. Rosenblum of Oregon, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Wanda Vasquez-Garced of Puerto Rico, Peter F. Kilmartin of Rhode Island, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Ken Paxton of Texas, Mark R. Herring of Virginia, and Peter K. Michael of Wyoming.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law et al. by Brett J. Williamson, Nathaniel Asher, David K. Lukmire, Faiza Patel, Michael W. Price, David D. Cole, Jennifer Stisa Granick, Arthur Rizer, Charles Duan, Lee Tien, Andrew Crocker, and Mahesha P. Subbaraman; for Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e. V. et al. by Saad Gul; for the Competitive Enterprise Institute et al. by Jim Harper, Ilya Shapiro, and Manuel S. Klausner; for the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe by Nowell D. Bamberger; for DIGITALEUROPE et al. by Ilana H. Eisenstein and Ethan H. Townsend; for Digital Rights Ireland Limited et al. by Owen C. Pell and Susan L. Grace; for Electronic Privacy Information Center et al. by Marc Rotenburg and Alan Butler; for EU Data Protection and Privacy Scholars by Daniel M. Sullivan, Vincent Levy, and Matthew V. H. Noller; for the European Company Lawyers Association by Jonathan I. Blackman and Jared Gerber; for Fourth Amendment Scholars by Michael Vatis; for Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e. V. by Mr. Pell and Ms. Grace; for International and Extraterritorial Law Scholars by J. Carl Cecere; for International Business Machines Corporation by Paul D. Clement, George W. Hicks, Jr., and Damon C. Andrews; for InternetLab Law and Technology Center by Amy Neuhardt and Jessica Phillips; for Ireland by Thomas J. Goodwin and Charles D. Ray; for Members of Congress by Michael E. Bern; for the Policing Project at New York University School of Law by Eric Citron and Barry Friedman; for Privacy International et al. by Brian M. Willen; for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press et al. by Bruce D. Brown, Laura R. Handman, Alison Schary, Richard A. Bernstein, Kevin M. Goldberg, David M. Giles, David Bralow, Marcia Hofmann, Barbara W. Wall, George Freeman, James Cregan, Mickey H. Osterreicher, Jonathan Hart, Micah Ratner, Barbara L. Camens, Bruce W. Sanford, and Lauren Fisher; for Technology Companies by Marc J. Zwillinger and Catherine M. A. Carroll; for the Washington Legal Foundation by Richard A. Samp and Cory L. Andrews; for Jan Philipp Albrecht et al. by Mr. Pell and Ms. Grace; for 12 Business and Consumer Associations by Andrew J. Pincus and Paul W. Hughes; and for 51 Computer Scientists by John D. Vandenberg and Klaus H. Hamm.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the E-Discovery Institute et al. by David Kessler; for the European Commission on Behalf of the European Union by Adam G. Unikowsky and Patrick W. Pearsall; for Former Law Enforcement, National Security, and Intelligence Officials by Gus P. Coldebella; for the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain et al. by Donald I. Baker, W. Todd Miller, and Ishai Mooreville; for the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner by Allyson N. Ho and William R. Peterson; and for Joseph Cannataci by Vivek Krishnamurthy.

Counsel

Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Francisco, Acting Assistant Attorney General Cronan, Morgan L. Goodspeed, and Ross B. Goldman.

E. Joshua Rosenkranz argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Robert M. Loeb, Brian P. Goldman, Evan M. Rose, Bradford L. Smith, David M. Howard, James M. Garland, and Alexander A. Berengaut.*

Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

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 238must disclose to the Government electronic communications within its control even if the provider stores the communications abroad. 583 U. S. 931 (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.

239After 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 (SDNY 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 (CA2 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 adding the following provision:

“A [service provider] shall comply with the obligations of this chapter to preserve, backup, or disclose the contents of a wire or electronic communication and any record or other information pertaining to a customer or subscriber within such provider’s possession, custody, or control, regardless of whether such communication, record, or other information is located within or outside of the United States.” CLOUD Act § 103(a)(1).

240Soon thereafter, the Government obtained, pursuant to the new law, a new § 2703 warrant covering the information requested in the § 2703 warrant at issue in this case.

No live dispute remains between the parties over the issue with respect to which certiorari was granted. See Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. Galioto, 477 U. S. 556, 559 (1986). Further, the parties agree that the new warrant has replaced the original warrant. This case, therefore, has become moot. Following the Court’s established practice in such cases, the judgment on review is accordingly vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions first to vacate the District Court’s contempt finding and its denial of Microsoft’s motion to quash, then to direct the District Court to dismiss the case as moot.

It is so ordered.

← All opinions · The Justices, October Term 2017 →