Microsoft Corp. v. United States
The Supreme Court declined to bypass the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and hear Microsoft's antitrust case directly, instead sending the case back for ordinary appellate review.
The order also denied a request to review a related case before the appeals court had ruled, and Chief Justice Rehnquist issued a rare public statement explaining why he was not stepping aside despite his son's law firm representing Microsoft in separate litigation.
How it got here: A district court ruled against Microsoft in an antitrust suit; Microsoft sought direct Supreme Court review, and a related case sought review before the appeals court ruled.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The federal government sued Microsoft for antitrust violations tied to its business practices, and a federal district court ruled against the company. Microsoft asked the Supreme Court to hear its appeal directly, bypassing the court of appeals, under a law allowing expedited review of major antitrust cases. A related case separately sought Supreme Court review before the appeals court had weighed in.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court skip the appeals court and hear Microsoft's antitrust case directly?
The Court's answer
No — the Court declined to bypass the D.C. Circuit and hear Microsoft's antitrust appeal directly, instead sending the case back for the ordinary appeals process. In a related case, the Court also denied a request to step in before the appeals court had ruled.
Justice Breyer dissented, arguing the case's importance to a fast-moving technology sector justified immediate Supreme Court review to create legal certainty sooner. Chief Justice Rehnquist separately explained, in a public statement, why he was not disqualifying himself despite his son's law firm representing Microsoft in unrelated antitrust litigation.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
The decision meant the high-profile Microsoft antitrust case would go through a full appeals-court review before possibly reaching the Supreme Court, delaying final resolution of the government's case against the technology giant. Rehnquist's statement also offered a rare public look at how a justice reasons through a personal conflict-of-interest question involving a family member's law firm.
What changes now
The case returns to the D.C. Circuit for the normal appellate process, where that court will review the district court's antitrust ruling against Microsoft before the case could potentially come back to the Supreme Court later. This order does not decide Microsoft's antitrust liability; it is purely procedural, addressing only how and when the case would be reviewed.
What this does not decide
This order does not resolve whether Microsoft violated the antitrust laws. It only decides the procedural question of whether the Supreme Court would hear the case immediately, sending the underlying merits dispute to the D.C. Circuit for standard appellate review instead.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Breyer
“The case significantly affects an important sector of the economy — a sector characterized by rapid technological change.”Breyer explains why he believed the Supreme Court should hear Microsoft's antitrust appeal directly.
Justice Breyer would have granted direct review, arguing the case's major effect on a fast-changing technology sector favored quick, certain resolution by the Supreme Court itself. He acknowledged that letting the court of appeals go first could help narrow and focus the legal issues, but concluded the Court could still handle the case fully by allowing extra briefing and argument time.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- A federal law, the Expediting Act (15 U.S.C. §29(b)), lets parties in certain major antitrust cases ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal directly, skipping the normal step of going through a federal court of appeals first.
- In No. 00-139, the Court chose not to use that direct-appeal option and instead sent the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for ordinary review of the district court's ruling.
- In the companion case, No. 00-261, the Court denied a request for certiorari before judgment, meaning it declined to take up that case before the court of appeals had a chance to rule.
- Separately, Chief Justice Rehnquist explained in a public statement why he was not recusing himself: under 28 U.S.C. §455, disqualification is required only when a Justice's family member has an interest that could be substantially affected by the case's outcome, and he concluded his son's law firm had no such interest here because the firm was paid hourly and neither his son nor the firm worked on the Supreme Court matters.