# United States v. Microsoft Corp. No. 17-2 · Decided April 17, 2018 · 584 U. S. 236 > Prepared by Supreme Court Report from the PDF published by the Supreme Court of the United States. The PDF is the authoritative text; this copy can contain errors of conversion. Source: ## Syllabus 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. \* 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 [\*238] must 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. [\*239] After 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). [\*240] Soon 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.*