The United States v. Microsoft

03/01/18 • 58 min

Can the federal government compel a U.S.-based email provider to turn over its records as part of a criminal investigation when those records are located outside of the country?

The United States v. Microsoft case pending before the Supreme Court could have big implications for law enforcement, consumer privacy and the business operations of many companies that do business overseas.

The Microsoft case deals with a specific question: If a U.S. provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant (issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703) by disclosing in the United States electronic communications within that provider’s control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.

Joining us to discuss these important issues are two leading experts on the case.

Benjamin Battles is the solicitor general of Vermont, which filed an amicus brief with 34 other states and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico in support of the federal government in United States v. Microsoft.

Vivek Krishnamurthy is a Clinical Instructor in Harvard Law School's Cyberlaw Clinic. He specializes in the international aspects of internet governance and on the human rights challenges associated with offering new internet-based services in different legal environments around the world.

Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at [email protected]

The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Can the federal government compel a U.S.-based email provider to turn over its records as part of a criminal investigation when those records are located outside of the country?

Joining us to discuss these important issues are two leading experts on the case.

Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at [email protected]

The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Previous Episode

Mandatory union fees and the First Amendment

Alicia Hickok and Eugene Volokh join National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss a major Supreme Court case about public-union dues.

The Supreme Court is considering arguments in a case that could have a huge effect on public-section unions and their membership.

The case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) will be heard on February 26 at the Court. The question in front of the nine Justices is if public-sector “agency shop” arrangements -- payments that workers represented by a union must pay even if they are not dues-paying members -- should be invalidated under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court said in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) that government employees who don’t belong to a union can be required to pay for union contract negotiating costs that benefit to all public employees, including non-union members.

The Abood decision has been challenged in court several times, and an evenly divided Court couldn’t decide a similar case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in 2016. This time, a full Court will consider the issue.

Alicia Hickok is a Partner at the law firm Drinker Biddle and a Lecturer in law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She wrote an amicus brief in the Janus case on behalf of the Rutherford Institute, siding with Janus’s position.

Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA Law School. He co-wrote an amicus brief in Janus with Will Baude siding with the union.

Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at [email protected]

And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey

The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Next Episode

Workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation

Can an employment lawsuit be based on the premise that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a Title VII violation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964? On Feb. 26, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 10-3 decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express Inc. that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of discrimination “because of . . . sex,” in violation of Title VII.

Some legal experts have predicted that the case might eventually make its way to the Supreme Court. Last April, the Seventh Circuit ruled in a separate case that Title VII could be applied to a similar workplace situation. But the Supreme Court passed on a third case, out of Georgia, that dealt with the same issue.

Joining us on this podcast are two experts with different takes on this question.

John Eastman is Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service

and Former Dean at Chapman University Law School. He is also the Director of the University’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Suzanne Goldberg is Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, where she also directs the Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law and its Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic.

National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderates the discussion.

Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at [email protected]

The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.