FCC v. AT&T Inc.

Last updated

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 19, 2011
Decided March 1, 2011
Full case name Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. AT&T Inc., et al.
Docket no. 09-1279
Citations562 U.S. 397 ( more )
131 S. Ct. 1177; 179 L. Ed. 2d 132; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1899; 79 U.S.L.W. 4122; 39 Media L. Rep. 1368; 52 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 689; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 825
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior FCC orders reviewed by 3rd Cir. and overturned, 582 F.3d 490 (3d Cir. 2009); cert. granted, 561 U.S. 1057(2010)
Holding
Corporations do not have "personal privacy" for the purposes of Freedom of Information Act Exemption 7(C). Third Circuit reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityRoberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
5 U.S.C.   § 552

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case on aspects of corporate personhood. It held that the exemption from Freedom of Information Act disclosure requirements for law enforcement records which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" does not protect information related to corporate privacy. [1]

Contents

Parties

Plaintiff

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of competition, the public safety, broadband, spectrum, the media, and homeland security. [2] The FCC was created by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and they are charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum which includes radio and television broadcasting and all interstate telecommunications as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States

Defendant

AT&T inc. is the largest provider of fixed telephony in the United States. [3]

Background

In 2004, AT&T and FCC agreed to produce an “E-Rate” program that assists schools and libraries across the US to obtain affordable telecommunications and Internet access. Later, AT&T disclosed to FCC that it might have overcharged the Government for its services. FCC started an investigation process which ended in a $500,000 settlement paid by AT&T. Many AT&T customers, represented by CompTel company, then requested FCC to make public all the pleadings and correspondences between FCC and AT&T from the investigation. AT&T, however, argued that FCC has no right to do so, referring to the Freedom of Information Act §552(b)(7)(C) which exempts records if their disclosure might lead to “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”. [4] AT&T filed a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On September 22, 2009, the Third Circuit released its decision favoring AT&T. [5] The court agreed that the use of word “personal” derives from a word “person”, which legally includes corporations. [6]

Corporate Personhood

The case revived the debates over the corporate personhood. The question whether corporations should be treated as persons has been presented to the Supreme Court before. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad , 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court decided that corporations could be regarded as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. [7]

Another Supreme Court case related to the issue is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . [8] The dispute was over whether Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, had the same right to fund political campaigns as a person. In this controversial case, the Supreme Court's 5–4 decision favored Citizen United, granting corporations, profit and non-profit, and unions the right to financially support political campaigns. [9] [10]

Based on these precedent cases, AT&T sued to halt the disclosure of the investigation details in order to protect the corporation's "personal privacy".

Personal Privacy

The Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to make records and documents publicly available upon request (subject to several statutory exemptions). It was the main component in allocations that the FCC brought against the AT&T on January 19, 2011.

§552(b)(7)(C) of FOIA states:

“(b) This section does not apply to matters that are (7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” [11]

The different interpretations of the term “personal privacy” became the central focus point of the case. AT&T contended that its reading of “personal” was supported by the common legal usage of the word “person.” Yet while “person,” in a legal setting, often refers to artificial entities, AT&T's effort to ascribe a corresponding legal meaning to “personal” again elided the difference between “person” and “personal.”

The Third Circuit Case

AT&T filed a lawsuit against FCC on September 22, 2009, after the latter had rejected ATT's position regarding the disclosure of investigation materials concluding that the corporations lacked the personal privacy rights. The court's decision relied heavily on the plain text of the Freedom Of Information Act, which did not define a term “personal” but included corporations in the legal definition of the term “person”. In regards to FCC Vs. ATT Inc., in the case referring to the term “personal” the Third Circuit opinion states that exemption 7(C) extends to the “personal privacy” of corporations, reasoning that “personal” is the adjective form of the term “person”, which Congress has defined, as applicable here, to include corporations. [12] Judge Chagares of the Third Circuit concluded in the court opinion:

““Personal” is the adjectival form of “person,” and FOIA defines “person” to include a corporation. We agree. It would be very odd indeed for an adjectival form of a defined term not to refer back to that defined term” [5]

Supreme Court Case

Not content with the Third Circuit decision, FCC appealed in the Supreme Court. The case was argued on January 19, 2011. AT&T Inc. position remained the same, where it focused on the definition of the word “personal” being directly related to a legal meaning of a term “person”.

The court session opened with an announcement of the 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court in the NASA v. Nelson case, which was argued on October 5, 2010. The case's concerns were whether the background checks of NASA employees by the federal government violated their personal privacy. The Court's decision stated that such actions did not violate the employees' constitutional privacy rights. [13] Even though the current FCC v. ATT Inc. case was focused on the different type of personal privacy involving corporations, the announcement set the tone of the Court's view on the privacy issues involving government interests. [14]

Court Opinion

In the Supreme Court's ruling published on March 1, 2011, the definition of the term “personal” has been regarded differently. The opinion states:

“Personal” ordinarily refers to individuals. People do not generally use terms such as personal characteristics or personal correspondence to describe the characteristics or correspondence of corporations.”

Therefore, the Third Circuit ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court's decision. [1]

In the Court's opinion, Chief Justice Roberts discussed several examples of how adjective and noun forms of the same word stem could have completely different meanings. [15]

Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns, but not always. Sometimes they acquire distinct meanings of their own. The noun "crab" refers variously to a crustacean and a type of apple, while the related adjective "crabbed" can refer to handwriting that is “difficult to read,” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 527 (2002); "corny" can mean "using familiar and stereotyped formulas believed to appeal to the unsophisticated," which has little to do with "corn" ("the seeds of any of the cereal grasses used for food"); and while "crank" is "a part of an axis bent at right angles," "cranky" can mean "given to fretful fussiness." [1]

The Court's opinion ends with the following:

We reject the argument that because "person" is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase "personal privacy" in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally. [1]

Implications

The Supreme Court's decision struck a blow to corporate personhood and held that corporations cannot claim exempt status from Freedom of Information Act requests. The decision however is limited only to the specific exemptions under FOIA. That being said, the importance of the case on the bigger scale is that corporations lack a statute that provides personal privacy rights for them and it becomes unlikely that they will be able to get such statutory rights under state or federal statutory law. [16]

Many conservatives see this as an effort by the left to use FOIA to control and "terrorize American businesses at will". [17] On the other hand, businesses are expected to make a greater use of information collected from their competitors and disclosed to the public by the federal government. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

Corporate personhood or juridical personality is the legal notion that a juridical person such as a corporation, separately from its associated human beings, has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons. In most countries, a corporation has the same rights as a natural person to hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), is a corporate law case of the United States Supreme Court concerning taxation of railroad properties. The case is most notable for a headnote stating that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment grants constitutional protections to corporations.

In law, a legal person is any person or 'thing' that can do the things a human person is usually able to do in law – such as enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and so on. The reason for the term "legal person" is that some legal persons are not people: companies and corporations are "persons" legally speaking, but they are not people in a literal sense.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of Information Act (United States)</span> 1967 US statute regarding access to information held by the US government

The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, is the United States federal freedom of information law that requires the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased or uncirculated information and documents controlled by the U.S. government, state, or other public authority upon request. The act defines agency records subject to disclosure, outlines mandatory disclosure procedures, and includes nine exemptions that define categories of information not subject to disclosure. The act was intended to make U.S. government agencies' functions more transparent so that the American public could more easily identify problems in government functioning and put pressure on Congress, agency officials, and the president to address them. The FOIA has been changed repeatedly by both the legislative and executive branches.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples.

Michael R. Murphy is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

Department of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn., 532 U.S. 1 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned whether Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, which applies to "intra agency memoranda or letters", is applicable to documents within the Department of the Interior which discussed plans for the allocation of water in the Klamath River Basin. The Court held unanimously that the exemption did not apply.

NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that NASA's background checks of contract employees did not violate any constitutional privacy right.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

<i>Joffe v. Google, Inc.</i>

Joffe v. Google, Inc. is a federal lawsuit between Ben Joffe and Google, Inc. Joffe claimed that Google broke one of the Wiretap Act segments when they intruded on the seemingly "public" wireless networks of private homes through their Street View application. Although Google tried to appeal their case multiple times, the courts favored Joffe's argument. Ultimately the Supreme Court declined to take the case, affirming the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the Wiretap Act covers the interception of unencrypted Wi-Fi communications.

Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which a unanimous Court held that federal court abstention under the Younger v. Harris doctrine is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter. The case involved a dispute between Sprint Corporation and Windstream Communications.

A campaign finance reform amendment refers to any proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to authorize greater restrictions on spending related to political speech, and to overturn Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed such laws under the First Amendment. Several amendments have been filed since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Occupy movement.

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cell site location information (CSLI). The Court held that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it accesses historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006</span> Illinois Attorney General opinion concerning freedom of information

Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006 is a binding opinion issued in 2016 by the Illinois Attorney General pursuant to the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Issued in the aftermath of the murder of Laquan McDonald, the opinion addressed a public records request from CNN for private emails by officers of the Chicago Police Department (CPD) related to the incident. After CPD denied CNN's request, the Attorney General's office, led by Lisa Madigan, ruled that the police officers' private emails about McDonald's murder were subject to public disclosure, even though those emails were communicated on accounts outside of the police department's email servers. The binding opinion was later upheld by the Circuit Court of Cook County, though CNN never received the records that it had requested.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illinois Freedom of Information Act</span> Public records law in Illinois

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq., is an Illinois statute that grants to all persons the right to copy and inspect public records in the state. The law applies to executive and legislative bodies of state government, units of local government, and other entities defined as "public bodies". All records related to governmental business are presumed to be open for inspection by the public, except for information specifically exempted from disclosure by law. The statute is modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act and serves a similar purpose as freedom of information legislation in the other U.S. states.

<i>City of Champaign v. Madigan</i> Illinois court case concerning freedom of information

City of Champaign v. Madigan, 2013 IL App (4th) 120662, 992 N.E.2d 629 (2013), is a case decided by the Illinois Appellate Court in 2013 concerning the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The court ruled that messages sent and received by elected officials during a city council meeting are subject to public disclosure, even when those communications are stored on personal electronic devices. The case addressed a public records request from a reporter for The News-Gazette in Champaign, Illinois, who observed Champaign city council members and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages, outside the public's view, during a city council meeting.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc., 592 U.S. ___ (2021), was a Supreme Court of the United States case involving whether the use of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request can be used to access documents from a U.S. agency that are protected under the deliberative process privilege exemption, in this specific case, draft biological opinions made and reviewed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) prior to a final rulemaking decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to impacts on endangered aquatic species, requested by the Sierra Club. The Court ruled in a 7–2 decision in 2021 that the government does not have to disclose "draft biological opinions" involving potential threats to endangered species, even though the drafts reflect an agency's final proposal. The ruling limits environmental groups' ability to obtain government documents using the FOIA.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (2011). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ "2008 Performance and Accountability Report" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. September 2008. Retrieved May 4, 2011.
  3. ↑ "The Global 2000". Forbes. 2010-03-01. Retrieved May 4, 2011.
  4. ↑ Lustigman, Andrew. "FCC v. AT&T, Inc.: The Lack of Personal Privacy for Corporations". Archived from the original on June 27, 2011. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
  5. 1 2 AT&T Inc. v. FCC, 582F.3d490 ( 3d Cir. 2009).
  6. ↑ Snyder, Cary. "3rd Circuit Rules Personal Privacy Interest Applies to Corporations". College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota. Archived from the original on January 27, 2011. Retrieved March 15, 2011.
  7. ↑ Bravin, Jess (September 17, 2009). "Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law". The Wall Street Journal.
  8. ↑ Citizens United v. FEC , 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
  9. ↑ "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Docket No. 08-205)". Cornell University School of Law. Retrieved May 5, 2011.
  10. ↑ "FCC v. AT&T Inc". Alliance for Justice. Archived from the original on March 15, 2012. Retrieved May 5, 2011.
  11. ↑ "The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552" (PDF). Retrieved May 4, 2011.
  12. ↑ Hartman, Scott (2010). "Privacy, Personhood, and the Courts: FOIA Exemption 7(C) in Context". Yale Law Journal. 120: 379–395. SSRN   1716446.
  13. ↑ DE VOGUE, ARIANE (January 19, 2011). "Supreme Court: NASA Can Ask Employees About Drug Use". ABC News. Retrieved May 5, 2011.
  14. ↑ Lithwick, Dahlia (January 19, 2011). "Reach Out and Touch Someone: FCC v. AT&T reveals the limits of corporate personhood at the Supreme Court. (Jan. 19, 2011)". Slate. Slate.com. Retrieved May 5, 2011.
  15. ↑ Liptak, Adam (March 1, 2011). "Supreme Court Rules on AT&T Case". The New York Times. Retrieved March 3, 2011.
  16. ↑ Tobin, Timothy. "Not all Persons Are Entitled to Personal Privacy under FOIA". Chronicle of Data Protection. Retrieved May 4, 2011.
  17. ↑ "FCC vs. AT&T: A Little Known Case With Big Consequences. January 19, 2011". Eagle Forum of Alabama.
  18. ↑ Schneider, Andrew. "FCC vs AT&T (March 1, 2011)". KUHF Business News. Retrieved May 5, 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.