## Facts

- Federal investigators sought information connected to alleged drug activity and obtained a warrant under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2703, directed to Microsoft Corporation.
- The warrant required Microsoft to disclose customer records and the contents of a specified email account.
- Microsoft produced responsive information located on servers in the United States.
- Microsoft determined that the account’s email content was stored on a Microsoft server in Dublin, Ireland, under Microsoft’s standard data-storage practices.
- Microsoft refused to produce the Ireland-stored email content and moved to quash the warrant to the extent it required retrieval and production of content stored abroad.
- A magistrate judge denied the motion to quash, reasoning that an SCA warrant operates as a hybrid between a warrant and a subpoena and could reach information within Microsoft’s control even if stored outside the United States.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s reasoning, denied Microsoft’s objections, and—on the parties’ stipulation—held Microsoft in civil contempt for failing to produce the Ireland-stored content.
- Microsoft appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether a warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 authorizes a court to compel a U.S. service provider to produce the contents of communications stored on servers located outside the United States.
2. Whether an SCA “warrant” should be treated like a subpoena (reaching materials within the provider’s control regardless of location) rather than a territorial search warrant for purposes of extraterritoriality.
3. Under the presumption against extraterritoriality, whether enforcing the warrant for Ireland-stored content would apply the SCA extraterritorially.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Microsoft’s motion to quash as to the email content stored in Ireland.
- The court held that the SCA does not contain a clear indication of extraterritorial application and does not authorize compelling production of stored communications content located abroad through a § 2703 warrant.
- The court vacated the district court’s civil contempt order entered against Microsoft.

## Legal Principles

- Federal statutes are presumed to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise.
- Courts apply a two-step extraterritoriality analysis: (1) ask whether Congress clearly intended the statute to apply outside the United States; if not, (2) determine the statute’s “focus” and whether the conduct relevant to that focus occurred domestically or abroad.
- Section 2703 does not clearly indicate that Congress intended SCA warrants to apply extraterritorially.
- The SCA warrant provisions’ focus is the protection of privacy in the content of stored communications; the relevant invasion occurs where the content is accessed and seized, not where the provider later discloses it to the government.
- An SCA order labeled a “warrant,” requiring probable cause and using warrant procedures, is not treated as a subpoena for purposes of extending it to content stored on foreign servers.
- Absent clear statutory authorization, courts do not extend warrant authority in a way that risks conflicts with foreign law and international comity concerns; changing that balance is a task for Congress.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the Stored Communications Act does not authorize the government to use a § 2703 warrant to compel Microsoft to retrieve and produce email content stored on servers in Ireland, because the statute lacks a clear statement permitting extraterritorial application and its focus is protecting privacy in stored communications where the data is located; the court therefore quashed the warrant as to the foreign-stored content and vacated Microsoft’s civil contempt order.


Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 829 F.3d 197 (2016)