United States v. Microsoft Corp.
The Supreme Court dismissed as moot a closely watched dispute over whether Microsoft had to turn over customer emails stored on a server in Ireland in response to a U.S. warrant.
Congress passed a new law during the case's pendency letting U.S. warrants reach data stored abroad, and the government obtained a new warrant under that law, eliminating any live disagreement for the Court to resolve.
“No live dispute remains between the parties over the issue with respect to which certiorari was granted.”
The Court's explanation for why the case had become moot.
How it got here: A magistrate and district court ordered Microsoft to comply and held it in contempt; the Second Circuit reversed, and the government sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Federal agents investigating drug trafficking obtained a warrant ordering Microsoft to disclose a customer's emails. Microsoft found the emails were stored only on a server in Dublin, Ireland, and refused to turn them over for the foreign-stored data, arguing the warrant law did not reach information kept outside the United States.
The question before the Court
Did new legislation letting the government reach emails stored overseas make the fight over Microsoft's Irish-stored emails pointless to decide?
Why it matters
Companies and law enforcement now operate under the new CLOUD Act, which explicitly requires U.S.-based service providers to turn over customer data in response to a warrant even when the data sits on foreign servers, resolving the practical question the litigation had raised without a Supreme Court ruling on the old law.
What changes now
The case returns to the Second Circuit, which is instructed to vacate the district court's contempt finding and its denial of Microsoft's motion to quash, and then direct the district court to dismiss the case as moot. The underlying legal question about the old law's reach abroad is no longer being litigated in this case, since a new warrant issued under the CLOUD Act now governs disclosure of the data.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the original warrant, issued before the CLOUD Act, validly required Microsoft to disclose data stored abroad. That question became moot once Congress changed the law and a new warrant issued, so no ruling on the merits of the original dispute was made.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that under its established practice, a case becomes moot, and no live dispute remains for the Court to resolve, when intervening events eliminate any actual disagreement between the parties over the question originally presented.
- While the case was pending, Congress enacted the CLOUD Act, which amended the warrant statute to require providers to disclose covered communications and records in their control 'regardless of whether' the information is stored inside or outside the United States.
- Acting under the new law, the government obtained a new warrant covering the same information sought in the original warrant, and the parties agreed the new warrant replaced the old one.
- Because the new warrant mooted the original dispute over whether the old law reached data stored abroad, the Court found no live controversy remained for it to decide on the merits.