44:
617:
609:
to deny law enforcement officials with requested information stored on servers outside the United States, hampering numerous criminal investigations. The department was joined by 33 states in support. Microsoft argued that the Court should not take the case, and instead that
Congress should deal with
563:
that the "longstanding principle of
American law that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States" applies in all cases. The Second Circuit found no mention of extraterritorial application in the SCA nor in
673:
shortly after the oral hearings. Among other provisions, the CLOUD Act modified the SCA to specifically include cloud storage considerations of communication providers in the United States regardless of where the cloud servers may be located. The bill was supported by both the DOJ and
Microsoft. In
587:
Separately from its appeal, the U.S. Government has had at least one other ruling in its favor, and specially against the decision of the Second
Circuit Court, for similar extraterritorial requests under the SCA. In February 2017, federal magistrate judge, presiding over a district court within the
567:
In his concurrence, Judge Lynch noted that there was nothing in the record to indicate whether the owner of the e-mails being sought was a U.S. citizen or resident. He agreed with the government that the term "warrant" only implied the need for issuance under Fourth
Amendment standards, rather than
592:
must comply with a government warrant to turn over data from foreign servers. The magistrate judge rejected Google's reliance on the current standing from the
Microsoft case, and stated in his opinion that the scope of the invasion of privacy for the case was entirely within the United States, and
583:
rehearing by the Second
Circuit in October 2016. In January 2017, the full court split 4ā4 on a vote to rehear the case, leaving in place the judgment in favor of Microsoft. Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes, who wrote in dissent, wrote that the held decision "has substantially burdened the government's
556:
In the appeal to the Second
Circuit, the three-judge panel unanimously overturned the lower court's ruling in July 2016, and invalided the government's warrant. The panel primarily focused on the extraterritoriality of the SCA, using a two-pronged test. Circuit Judge Susan L. Carney wrote the
635:
457:, which amended the SCA to resolve concerns from the government and Microsoft related to the initial warrant. The Supreme Court, following agreement from both the government and Microsoft, determined the passage of the CLOUD Act and a new warrant for the data filed under it made the case
584:
legitimate law enforcement efforts; created a roadmap for the facilitation of criminal activity; and impeded programs to protect the national security of the United States and its allies", and called on a higher court or the U.S. Congress to rectify the outdated language of the SCA.
678:
on March 22. By the end of March, the DOJ had issued a request for a new warrant for the original emails from the 2013 investigation under the new authority granted by the CLOUD Act, and no longer seeking resolution of the original warrant. It also requested that the Court
568:
suggesting it was a search warrant with a specific place. He also noted that
Microsoft chose to store the e-mails in Ireland based on the account holder's unverified statement of residence and on Microsoft's business interest in minimizing network
509:, and thus are not restricted by territorial constraints. The magistrate judge considered that Microsoft had control of the material outside the United States, and thus would be able to comply with the subpoena-like nature of the SCA warrant.
564:
its legislative history. The court said the SCA's use of the term "warrant", as a term-of-art, suggested a specific territory. It also concluded that the primary focus of the SCA was protecting the privacy of users of electronic services.
552:
filed an amicus brief in support of
Microsoft, stating that should the court grant execution of the warrant, it could "extend the scope of this anxiety to a sizable majority of the data held in the world's data centers outside the U.S.".
505:, reviewing the history of the SCA (which had not been amended since its passage), disagreed with Microsoft and ordered it to turn over the emails, reasoning that unlike a typical warrant, SCA warrants function as both a warrant and a
1355:
740:
633:
572:. No one disputed that if Microsoft had chosen to store the emails in the U.S., the warrant would have been valid. While he agreed with the majority that the presumption against extraterritoriality, as clarified in
426:(FBI) to turn over emails of a target account stored in Ireland, arguing that a warrant issued under Section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act could not compel American companies to produce data stored in
496:
Microsoft complied with providing the account information but refused to turn over the emails, arguing that a U.S. judge has no authority to issue a warrant for information stored abroad. Microsoft moved to
557:
opinion of Court with District Court Judge Victor A. Bolden. Circuit Judge Gerard E. Lynch wrote a concurring opinion. The court relied heavily on the United States Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in
1462:
489:
to produce all emails and information associated with an account they hosted. While the information was held on Microsoft's United States servers, the emails were stored on a server in
474:
431:
1133:
601:
The U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal with the Supreme Court in June 2017. Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued that the Second Circuit's order has led Microsoft,
975:
Ireland Is Willing To Apply The MLAT Process To This Warrant...Ireland would be pleased to consider, as expeditiously as possible, a request under the treaty, should one be made.
1482:
1442:
634:
434:, with the judge stating that the nature of the Stored Communication Act warrant, as passed in 1986, was not subject to territorial restrictions. Microsoft appealed to the
1408:
1383:
1107:
1457:
626:
774:
435:
258:
92:
1497:
1271:
540:
and Ireland's own data privacy laws, and maintained the emails should be disclosed only on request to the Irish government pursuant to the long-standing
1160:
796:
1327:
1189:
1081:
987:
1057:
722:ā Another Supreme Court case in the 2017–2018 term on the Stored Communication Act, dealing with privacy of mobile phone communications
404:
544:(MLAT) between the U.S. and Ireland formed in 2001; the government offered to consider such a request in an expedited manner for this case.
1492:
576:
was decisive in this case, he did not believe it to be an optimal policy outcome and called on Congress to clarify and modernize the SCA.
1477:
524:
Microsoft then appealed to the Second Circuit. Several United Statesābased technology companies, publishers, and individuals submitted
1011:
868:
697:
opinion stating that the case was rendered moot and vacating and remanding the case back to the lower courts to dismiss the lawsuit.
532:
also filed a brief in support of neither party. The Irish government considered that the U.S. government's action violated both the
1472:
1467:
1243:
674:
March 2018, Congress passed the CLOUD Act as part of an omnibus government spending bill, which was signed into law by President
900:"Defining the Limits of Governmental Access to Personal Data Stored in the Cloud: An Analysis and Critique of Microsoft Ireland"
666:, was heard by the Court on February 27, 2018, with a ruling originally expected by the end of the Court's term in June 2018.
804:
559:
439:
443:
48:
958:
1299:
691:
due to the passage of the CLOUD Act. Microsoft agreed with the DOJ's position. On April 17, 2018, the Court issued a
115:, S.D.N.Y. reversed, warrant quashed, and civil contempt ruling vacated (2nd Cir. 2016); cert. granted (S. Ct. 2018)
20:
940:
423:
269:
In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain EāMail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation
962:
848:
818:
541:
502:
470:
516:. The district court upheld the magistrate judge's ruling, requiring Microsoft to provide the emails in full.
1487:
1436:
1216:
840:
706:
513:
76:
1029:
826:
718:
712:
537:
482:
400:
375:
229:
684:
399:
case involving the extraterritoriality of law enforcement seeking electronic data under the 1986
1332:
1194:
797:"Microsoft Ireland Case: Can a US Warrant Compel A US Provider to Disclose Data Stored Abroad?"
775:"In re Warrant to Search a Certain Email Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp"
450:
925:
569:
529:
87:
300:
1276:
545:
593:
not where the electronic transfer of the data occurs, making the SCA warrant enforceable.
8:
1360:
1138:
745:
549:
341:
164:
438:, who found in favor of Microsoft by 2016 and invalidated the warrant. In response, the
1034:
921:
873:
782:
427:
125:
Second Circuit vacated and remanded after the controversy was mooted by passage of the
1356:"Justice Department asks Supreme Court to moot Microsoft email case, citing new law"
1300:"House passes controversial legislation giving the US more access to overseas data"
911:
680:
498:
916:
899:
19:
This article is about the 2015 data privacy issue. For the antitrust lawsuit, see
741:"Supreme Court to consider major digital privacy case on Microsoft email storage"
337:
333:
184:
160:
152:
1134:"Google must turn over foreign-stored emails pursuant to a warrant, court rules"
493:, Ireland, one of numerous servers Microsoft operates located around the world.
669:
While the case was being decided by the Supreme Court, Congress introduced the
533:
172:
1058:"Petition of the United States of America for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc"
469:
As part of the investigation into a drug-trafficking case in December 2013, a
1451:
501:
the warrant for the content held abroad on December 18, 2013. In May 2014, a
478:
412:
675:
525:
396:
196:
176:
144:
1161:"Does US have right to data on overseas servers? We're about to find out"
1082:"Court ruling stands: US has no right to seize data from world's servers"
408:
188:
693:
687:
it back to the Second Circuit, where the matter could then be rendered
659:
650:
1304:
1248:
988:"Microsoft wins: Court rules feds can't use SCA to nab overseas data"
670:
486:
454:
419:
307:
235:
126:
1384:"Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight"
688:
506:
458:
1409:"Supreme Court rules that Microsoft email privacy dispute is moot"
475:
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
16:
2015 Supreme Court case about data privacy and extraterritoriality
1412:
1387:
1111:
580:
407:, in light of modern computing and Internet technologies such as
1443:
Microsoft's Brief to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1272:"Senate bill would ease law enforcement access to overseas data"
959:"Brief For Ireland As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party"
606:
602:
589:
490:
43:
1190:"Microsoft Email-Access Fight With U.S. Gets Top Court Review"
1014:, Nick Wingfield, Cecilia Kang, New York Times, July 14, 2016
841:"In re Warrant for Microsoft Email Stored in Dublin, Ireland"
1328:"Justice Department Asks Court to Drop Microsoft Email Case"
1108:"Microsoft victory in overseas email seizure case is upheld"
1463:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cases
1183:
1181:
430:
outside the United States. Microsoft initially lost in the
320:
Reversed. Warrant quashed and civil contempt ruling vacated
869:"Ireland Lends Support to Microsoft in Email Privacy Case"
1178:
671:
Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act ("CLOUD Act")
1483:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
941:"Microsoft versus the Federal Government; Round Three"
455:
Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act)
1244:"What's at stake in the Microsoft Supreme Court case"
641:
Recording of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
436:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
306:, after the controversy was mooted by passage of the
259:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
732:
405:
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA)
1298:Brandom, Russell; Lecher, Colin (March 22, 2018).
449:While the case was pending in the Supreme Court,
1449:
610:updating the language of the outdated 1986 law.
1458:United States Supreme Court per curiam opinions
1012:Microsoft Wins Appeal on Overseas Data Searches
389:, known on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court as
395:, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018), was a
1297:
819:"The "Microsoft Ireland" Case (Amicus Brief)"
1217:"Court adds four new cases to merits docket"
893:
891:
579:The U.S. government filed a petition for an
1498:United States federal jurisdiction case law
461:and vacated the Second Circuit's decision.
211:
1353:
915:
888:
519:
1269:
1105:
1024:
1022:
1020:
862:
860:
858:
1450:
1381:
1106:Stempel, Jonathan (January 24, 2017).
811:
738:
1325:
1241:
1187:
897:
866:
769:
767:
765:
763:
528:supporting Microsoft's position. The
299:Vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court as
31:2018 United States Supreme Court case
1131:
1017:
855:
446:, which decided to hear the appeal.
1354:Nakashima, Ellen (March 31, 2018).
805:Center for Democracy and Technology
739:Barnes, Robert (October 16, 2017).
560:Morrison v. National Australia Bank
440:United States Department of Justice
13:
1382:Hurley, Lawrence (April 3, 2018).
1242:Jeong, Sarah (February 26, 2018).
1030:"Microsoft Corp. v. United States"
938:
833:
789:
760:
615:
444:Supreme Court of the United States
49:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1509:
1478:United States Supreme Court cases
1430:
867:Scott, Mark (December 24, 2014).
1439:- contains links to briefs filed
1188:Stohr, Greg (October 16, 2017).
664:United States v. Microsoft Corp.
649:Problems playing this file? See
631:
596:
392:United States v. Microsoft Corp.
386:Microsoft Corp. v. United States
302:United States v. Microsoft Corp.
250:Microsoft Corp. v. United States
113:Microsoft Corp. v. United States
67:United States v. Microsoft Corp.
42:
37:Microsoft Corp. v. United States
22:United States v. Microsoft Corp.
1493:IrelandāUnited States relations
1401:
1375:
1347:
1319:
1291:
1270:Breland, Ali (August 1, 2017).
1263:
1235:
1209:
1153:
1132:Kerr, Orin (February 3, 2017).
1125:
1099:
1074:
1050:
1005:
980:
424:Federal Bureau of Investigation
401:Stored Communications Act (SCA)
304:, No. 17-2, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
1473:United States privacy case law
1468:2015 in United States case law
1326:Stohr, Greg (March 31, 2018).
963:Electronic Frontier Foundation
951:
932:
849:Electronic Frontier Foundation
542:mutual legal assistance treaty
471:United States magistrate judge
1:
926:10.5325/jinfopoli.7.2017.0327
917:10.5325/jinfopoli.7.2017.0327
904:Journal of Information Policy
726:
707:Extraterritorial jurisdiction
464:
432:Southern District of New York
422:challenged a warrant by the
7:
700:
662:in October 2017. The case,
10:
1514:
898:Brier, Thomas Jr. (2017).
827:Brennan Center for Justice
719:Carpenter v. United States
658:The Supreme Court granted
588:Third Circuit, ruled that
18:
713:Data Protection Directive
538:Data Protection Directive
483:Stored Communications Act
376:Stored Communications Act
374:
369:
361:
353:
348:
329:
324:
319:
314:
295:
290:
282:
274:
264:
254:
249:
230:Stored Communications Act
225:
220:
209:
204:
138:
133:
124:
119:
108:
103:
82:
72:
62:
55:
41:
36:
512:Microsoft appealed to a
503:federal magistrate judge
485:of 1986 (SCA) requiring
56:Argued February 27, 2018
1333:Bloomberg Businessweek
1195:Bloomberg Businessweek
620:
520:Second Circuit opinion
514:federal District Judge
212:
58:Decided April 17, 2018
619:
1488:Microsoft litigation
779:harvardlawreview.org
546:Jan Philipp Albrecht
1361:The Washington Post
1139:The Washington Post
965:. December 23, 2014
785:. January 12, 2015.
746:The Washington Post
550:European Parliament
165:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1223:. October 16, 2017
1038:. December 9, 2016
1035:Harvard Law Review
939:Porter, Kathleen.
874:The New York Times
783:Harvard Law Review
621:
403:, Title II of the
296:Subsequent history
149:Associate Justices
823:brennancenter.org
636:
382:
381:
278:September 9, 2015
245:
244:
1505:
1425:
1424:
1422:
1420:
1415:. April 17, 2018
1405:
1399:
1398:
1396:
1394:
1379:
1373:
1372:
1370:
1368:
1351:
1345:
1344:
1342:
1340:
1323:
1317:
1316:
1314:
1312:
1295:
1289:
1288:
1286:
1284:
1267:
1261:
1260:
1258:
1256:
1239:
1233:
1232:
1230:
1228:
1213:
1207:
1206:
1204:
1202:
1185:
1176:
1175:
1173:
1171:
1157:
1151:
1150:
1148:
1146:
1129:
1123:
1122:
1120:
1118:
1103:
1097:
1096:
1094:
1092:
1078:
1072:
1071:
1069:
1067:
1062:
1054:
1048:
1047:
1045:
1043:
1026:
1015:
1009:
1003:
1002:
1000:
998:
984:
978:
977:
972:
970:
955:
949:
948:
936:
930:
929:
919:
895:
886:
885:
883:
881:
864:
853:
852:
851:. June 12, 2014.
837:
831:
830:
815:
809:
808:
807:. July 30, 2014.
793:
787:
786:
771:
758:
757:
755:
753:
736:
638:
637:
618:
530:Irish government
442:appealed to the
344:(District Judge)
342:Victor A. Bolden
325:Court membership
247:
246:
215:
134:Court membership
46:
45:
34:
33:
1513:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1448:
1447:
1437:SCOTUSblog page
1433:
1428:
1418:
1416:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1392:
1390:
1380:
1376:
1366:
1364:
1352:
1348:
1338:
1336:
1324:
1320:
1310:
1308:
1296:
1292:
1282:
1280:
1268:
1264:
1254:
1252:
1240:
1236:
1226:
1224:
1215:
1214:
1210:
1200:
1198:
1186:
1179:
1169:
1167:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1144:
1142:
1130:
1126:
1116:
1114:
1104:
1100:
1090:
1088:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1065:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1041:
1039:
1028:
1027:
1018:
1010:
1006:
996:
994:
986:
985:
981:
968:
966:
957:
956:
952:
937:
933:
896:
889:
879:
877:
865:
856:
839:
838:
834:
817:
816:
812:
795:
794:
790:
773:
772:
761:
751:
749:
737:
733:
729:
711:European Union
703:
681:vacate the case
656:
655:
647:
645:
644:
643:
642:
639:
632:
629:
622:
616:
599:
522:
467:
338:Gerard E. Lynch
334:Susan L. Carney
241:
187:
185:Sonia Sotomayor
175:
163:
161:Clarence Thomas
153:Anthony Kennedy
99:
57:
51:
32:
25:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1511:
1501:
1500:
1495:
1490:
1485:
1480:
1475:
1470:
1465:
1460:
1446:
1445:
1440:
1432:
1431:External links
1429:
1427:
1426:
1400:
1374:
1346:
1318:
1290:
1262:
1234:
1208:
1177:
1152:
1124:
1098:
1073:
1049:
1016:
1004:
979:
950:
931:
887:
854:
832:
810:
788:
759:
730:
728:
725:
724:
723:
715:
709:
702:
699:
646:
640:
630:
627:Oral arguments
625:
624:
623:
614:
613:
612:
598:
595:
534:European Union
521:
518:
466:
463:
380:
379:
372:
371:
367:
366:
363:
359:
358:
357:Carney, Bolden
355:
351:
350:
346:
345:
331:
330:Judges sitting
327:
326:
322:
321:
317:
316:
312:
311:
297:
293:
292:
288:
287:
284:
280:
279:
276:
272:
271:
266:
265:Full case name
262:
261:
256:
252:
251:
243:
242:
240:
239:
233:
226:
223:
222:
218:
217:
207:
206:
202:
201:
200:
199:
173:Stephen Breyer
150:
147:
142:
136:
135:
131:
130:
122:
121:
117:
116:
110:
106:
105:
101:
100:
98:138 S.Ct. 1186
97:
84:
80:
79:
74:
70:
69:
64:
63:Full case name
60:
59:
53:
52:
47:
39:
38:
30:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1510:
1499:
1496:
1494:
1491:
1489:
1486:
1484:
1481:
1479:
1476:
1474:
1471:
1469:
1466:
1464:
1461:
1459:
1456:
1455:
1453:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1435:
1434:
1414:
1410:
1404:
1389:
1385:
1378:
1363:
1362:
1357:
1350:
1335:
1334:
1329:
1322:
1307:
1306:
1301:
1294:
1279:
1278:
1273:
1266:
1251:
1250:
1245:
1238:
1222:
1218:
1212:
1197:
1196:
1191:
1184:
1182:
1166:
1162:
1156:
1141:
1140:
1135:
1128:
1113:
1109:
1102:
1087:
1083:
1077:
1059:
1053:
1037:
1036:
1031:
1025:
1023:
1021:
1013:
1008:
993:
989:
983:
976:
964:
960:
954:
946:
942:
935:
927:
923:
918:
913:
909:
905:
901:
894:
892:
876:
875:
870:
863:
861:
859:
850:
846:
842:
836:
828:
824:
820:
814:
806:
802:
798:
792:
784:
780:
776:
770:
768:
766:
764:
748:
747:
742:
735:
731:
721:
720:
716:
714:
710:
708:
705:
704:
698:
696:
695:
690:
686:
682:
677:
672:
667:
665:
661:
654:
652:
628:
611:
608:
604:
597:Supreme Court
594:
591:
585:
582:
577:
575:
571:
565:
562:
561:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:amicus briefs
517:
515:
510:
508:
504:
500:
494:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
462:
460:
456:
452:
447:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
416:
414:
413:cloud storage
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
393:
388:
387:
377:
373:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
349:Case opinions
347:
343:
339:
335:
332:
328:
323:
318:
313:
309:
305:
303:
298:
294:
289:
286:July 14, 2016
285:
281:
277:
273:
270:
267:
263:
260:
257:
253:
248:
237:
234:
231:
228:
227:
224:
219:
216:
214:
208:
203:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
148:
146:
143:
141:Chief Justice
140:
139:
137:
132:
129:(March 2018).
128:
123:
118:
114:
111:
107:
102:
95:
94:
89:
85:
81:
78:
75:
71:
68:
65:
61:
54:
50:
40:
35:
29:
27:
24:
23:
1417:. Retrieved
1403:
1391:. Retrieved
1377:
1365:. Retrieved
1359:
1349:
1337:. Retrieved
1331:
1321:
1309:. Retrieved
1303:
1293:
1281:. Retrieved
1275:
1265:
1255:February 26,
1253:. Retrieved
1247:
1237:
1225:. Retrieved
1220:
1211:
1199:. Retrieved
1193:
1168:. Retrieved
1165:Ars Technica
1164:
1155:
1143:. Retrieved
1137:
1127:
1115:. Retrieved
1101:
1089:. Retrieved
1086:Ars Technica
1085:
1076:
1064:. Retrieved
1052:
1040:. Retrieved
1033:
1007:
995:. Retrieved
992:Ars Technica
991:
982:
974:
967:. Retrieved
953:
944:
934:
907:
903:
878:. Retrieved
872:
844:
835:
822:
813:
800:
791:
778:
750:. Retrieved
744:
734:
717:
692:
676:Donald Trump
668:
663:
657:
648:
600:
586:
578:
573:
566:
558:
555:
523:
511:
495:
468:
448:
417:
409:data centers
397:data privacy
391:
390:
385:
384:
383:
370:Laws applied
310:(March 2018)
301:
291:Case history
268:
221:Laws applied
210:
205:Case opinion
197:Neil Gorsuch
192:
180:
177:Samuel Alito
168:
156:
145:John Roberts
112:
104:Case history
91:
66:
28:
26:
21:
1227:October 16,
1201:October 16,
1145:October 17,
1117:October 16,
1066:December 8,
1042:October 16,
997:October 16,
947:. JD Supra.
945:jdsupra.com
910:: 327ā371.
752:October 16,
453:passed the
362:Concurrence
189:Elena Kagan
1452:Categories
1221:SCOTUSBlog
1091:August 17,
727:References
694:per curiam
660:certiorari
651:media help
481:under the
465:Background
213:Per curiam
73:Docket no.
1419:April 17,
1311:March 23,
1305:The Verge
1283:March 23,
1249:The Verge
574:Morrison,
487:Microsoft
477:issued a
420:Microsoft
418:In 2013,
308:CLOUD Act
236:CLOUD Act
127:CLOUD Act
83:Citations
1393:April 4,
1367:April 2,
1339:April 2,
1277:The Hill
1170:July 20,
969:April 4,
880:April 4,
701:See also
507:subpoena
451:Congress
354:Majority
1413:Reuters
1388:Reuters
1112:Reuters
845:eff.org
801:cdt.org
581:en banc
570:latency
548:of the
479:warrant
473:in the
428:servers
378:of 1986
315:Holding
283:Decided
238:of 2018
232:of 1986
120:Holding
924:
685:remand
607:Yahoo!
605:, and
603:Google
590:Google
499:vacate
491:Dublin
275:Argued
195:
193:·
191:
183:
181:·
179:
171:
169:·
167:
159:
157:·
155:
1061:(PDF)
922:JSTOR
365:Lynch
255:Court
109:Prior
90:___ (
1421:2018
1395:2018
1369:2018
1341:2018
1313:2018
1285:2018
1257:2018
1229:2017
1203:2017
1172:2017
1147:2017
1119:2017
1093:2017
1068:2016
1044:2017
999:2017
971:2018
882:2018
754:2017
689:moot
683:and
459:moot
411:and
93:more
88:U.S.
86:584
77:17-2
912:doi
536:'s
1454::
1411:.
1386:.
1358:.
1330:.
1302:.
1274:.
1246:.
1219:.
1192:.
1180:^
1163:.
1136:.
1110:.
1084:.
1032:.
1019:^
990:.
973:.
961:.
943:.
920:.
906:.
902:.
890:^
871:.
857:^
847:.
843:.
825:.
821:.
803:.
799:.
781:.
777:.
762:^
743:.
415:.
340:,
336:,
1423:.
1397:.
1371:.
1343:.
1315:.
1287:.
1259:.
1231:.
1205:.
1174:.
1149:.
1121:.
1095:.
1070:.
1046:.
1001:.
928:.
914::
908:7
884:.
829:.
756:.
653:.
96:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.