Warshak v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
532 F.3d 521 · 2008
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably United States v. Warshak (2010), In re the United States (2013)
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2705 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · United States v. Leon · Bell v. Wolfish · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Three relevant definitions bear on the meaning of the compelled-diselosure provisions of the Act. “[Electronic communication service[s]” permit “users ... to send or receive wire or electronic communications,” [18 U.S.C.] § 2510(15), a definition that covers basic e-mail services, see Patricia L. Bellia et ah, Cyberlaw: Problems of Policy and Jurisprudence in the Information Age 584 (2d ed. 2004). “[Electronic storage” is “any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication ... and ... any storage of such communication by an electronic communication ser vice for purposes of backup protection of such communication.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (17). “[RJemote computing serviced” provide “computer storage or processing services” to customers, id. § 2711(2), and are designed for longer-term storage, see Orín S. Kerr, A User’s Guide to the Stored Communications Act, and a Legislator’s Guide to Amending It, 72 Geo. Wash. L.Rev. 1208 , 1216 (2004). The compelled-disclosure provisions give different levels of privacy protection based on whether the e-mail is held with an electronic communication service or a remote computing service and based on how long the e-mail has been in electronic storage. The government may obtain the contents of e-mails that are “in electronic storage” with an electronic communication service for 180 days or less “only pursuant to a warrant.” 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (a). The government has three options for obtaining communications stored with a remote ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“faces a choice between immediately complying with a burdensome law or risk[ing] serious criminal and civil penalties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Exercising judicial restraint in a facial challenge frees the Court not only from unnecessary pronouncements on constitutional issues, but also from premature interpretations of statutes in areas where their constitutional application might be cloudy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.