{"id":32029,"date":"2018-02-28T06:48:20","date_gmt":"2018-02-28T11:48:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=32029"},"modified":"2018-02-28T06:48:20","modified_gmt":"2018-02-28T11:48:20","slug":"scotusblog-argument-analysis-justices-divided-over-disclosure-of-overseas-emails","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=32029","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: Justices divided over disclosure of overseas emails"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>SCOTUSBlog: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2018\/02\/argument-analysis-justices-divided-disclosure-overseas-emails\/\">Argument analysis: Justices divided over disclosure of overseas emails<\/a> by Amy Howe:<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>When the Supreme Court heard oral argument this morning in United States v. Microsoft, it found itself in what has become familiar terrain \u2014 trying to apply a decades-old law to modern technology. Today the justices were interpreting what Justice Anthony Kennedy characterized as a \u201cdifficult statute\u201d: the Stored Communications Act, a 1986 law that requires an email provider to turn over the contents of emails if the government obtains a warrant. Computer giant Microsoft told the justices today that the SCA only applies within the United States, so the company cannot be compelled to turn over emails stored outside the country. The federal government countered that, although laws don\u2019t normally apply outside the United States, the SCA focuses on \u201cclassically domestic conduct\u201d: Here, it stressed, Microsoft is simply being asked to turn over electronic records that it controls, even if those records happen to be stored elsewhere. After struggling with the issues (and the technology) in the case for approximately an hour of oral argument, it wasn\u2019t at all clear how the justices will rule \u2013 if they even have the opportunity to do so before Congress enacts legislation that would resolve the case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: Justices divided over disclosure of overseas emails by Amy Howe:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32029","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-e-mail","category-f-r-crim-p-41"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32029","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=32029"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32029\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32030,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32029\/revisions\/32030"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=32029"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=32029"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=32029"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}