Microsoft Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “functions as a subpoena though the [SCA] calls it a warrant”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In re Jason Leopold to Unseal Certain Elec. Surveillance Applications · In re Leopold

2. “That requirement provides protection for individual privacy interests by requiring the Government to make an adequate showing of probable cause of evidence of a crime or property used to commit a crime to a judge-a well-established standard of Fourth Amendment protection. See id. ; Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(c) ; U.S. Const. amend. IV ("[N]o warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."); Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cnty. of S.F. , 387 U.S. 523 , 528, 87 S.Ct. 1727 , 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967) (explaining that purpose of Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement "is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials"). .... It makes no difference that Microsoft has chosen to store some electronic communications in other countries. That decision is based on its own business considerations, not privacy concerns for its customers. Microsoft has possession and immediate access to those emails regardless of where it chose to store them. Thus, the second prong of the RJR Nabisco test is satisfied here: the disclosure of the electronic communications occurs in the United States, when Microsoft honors the warrant by disclosing those communications.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In re Contents & Records Relating to the Google Accounts

3. “For example, who knew in 1986 that electronic mail-"email"-would become such a primary means of communication that its commercial providers would have millions of servers across the world to store and manage those communications? Or that the recipient of the warrant here-Microsoft-would itself manage over one million server computers, located in over forty countries, used by over one billion customers? Such developments in electronic communications could not have been anticipated at the time of the statute's adoption. Indeed, the task of applying statutes and rules from many years ago to unanticipated advances in technology has been undertaken in other contexts with much difficulty. See, e.g. , United States v. Ganias , 824 F.3d 199 , 219-21 (2d Cir. 2016) ( en banc ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In re Contents & Records Relating to the Google Accounts