Court Says Microsoft Can Sue Government Over First Amendment-Violating Gag Orders

from the prior-restraint,-but-for-forever-wars dept

One of several service providers to sue the government over its gag orders, Microsoft received some good news from a federal judge in its lawsuit against the DOJ. Microsoft is challenging gag orders attached to demands for data and communications, which the DOJ orders is statutorily-supported by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and, if not, by supposed national security concerns.

As Microsoft pointed out in its lawsuit, the government rarely justifies its secrecy demands and frequently issues gag orders with no endpoint. Microsoft received nearly 2,800 of these gag-ordered requests over an 18-month period, with over two-thirds of them demanding silence indefinitely.

The good news is a federal judge has (partially) waved away the DOJ’s motion to dismiss and will allow Microsoft to proceed with its lawsuit, as Politico’s Josh Gerstein reports.

U.S, District Court Judge James Robart issued a 47-page opinion [PDF] Thursday allowing Microsoft to proceed with a lawsuit claiming a First Amendment violation when the government restricts internet providers from notifying subscribers about requests for their data.

“The orders at issue here are more analogous to permanent injunctions preventing speech from taking place before it occurs,” Robart wrote. “The court concludes that Microsoft has alleged sufficient facts that when taken as true state a claim that certain provisions of Section 2705(b) fail strict scrutiny review and violate the First Amendment.”

Section 2705(b) refers to the Stored Communications Act, which allows the government demand notice be withheld under certain circumstances, unless otherwise forbidden to by another section of the same law (Section 2703). Microsoft is looking to have both sections declared unconstitutional, especially given the severe upheaval the communications landscape has undergone in the thirty years since the law was passed.

Microsoft contends that Section 2705(b) is unconstitutional facially and as applied because it violates the First Amendment right of a business to “talk to [the business’s] customers and to discuss how the government conducts its investigations.” Specifically, Microsoft contends that Section 2705(b) is overbroad, imposes impermissible prior restraints on speech, imposes impermissible content-based restrictions on speech, and improperly inhibits the public’s right to access search warrants. Microsoft also alleges that Sections 2705(b) and 2703 are unconstitutional facially and as applied because they violate the Fourth Amendment right of “people and businesses . . . to know if the government searches or seizes their property.”

Microsoft contends that the statutes are facially invalid because they allow the government to (1) forgo notifying individuals of searches and seizures, and (2) obtain secrecy orders that “prohibit providers from telling customers when the government has accessed their private information” without constitutionally sufficient proof and without sufficient tailoring.

The DOJ argued Microsoft didn’t have standing to bring this complaint, as its Fourth Amendment rights aren’t implicated. Only its customers’ are. But the court points out that, if nothing else, the company does have standing to pursue its claims of First Amendment violations.

The court finds that Microsoft has sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact and a likelihood of future injury. Microsoft alleges “an invasion of” its “legally protected interest” in speaking about government investigations due to indefinite nondisclosure orders issued pursuant to Section 2705(b)… The court concludes that Section 2705(b) orders that indefinitely prevent Microsoft from speaking about government investigations implicate Microsoft’s First Amendment rights.

The court goes on to point out that frequent use of indefinite gag orders certainly appears to be unconstitutional, given that they act as a “forever” application of prior restraint.

The court also concludes that Microsoft’s assertions of further civil injuries aren’t speculative, as the DOJ claimed. Judge Robart points to the government’s own actions as evidence of continued harm to Microsoft’s civil liberties.

Microsoft bolsters its prediction by alleging that over a 20-month period preceding this lawsuit, the Government sought and obtained 3,250 orders–at least 4504 of which accompanied search warrants—that contained indefinite nondisclosure provisions. In addition, Microsoft alleges that in this District alone, it has received at least 63 such orders since September 2014. Because these orders have been frequent and issued recently, the Government will likely continue to seek and obtain them. Accordingly, Microsoft’s “fears” of similar injuries in the future are not “merely speculative.”

Unfortunately, the court won’t grant Microsoft the standing to represent its users for Fourth Amendment purposes. Judge Robart points to a whole bunch of precedential decisions declaring otherwise, but at least takes a bit of time to discuss how denying Microsoft this opportunity likely means denying several of its users any sort of redress.

The court acknowledges the difficult situation this doctrine creates for customers subject to government searches and seizures under Sections 2703 and 2705(b). As Microsoft alleges, the indefinite nondisclosure orders allowed under Section 2705(b) mean that some customers may never know that the government has obtained information in which those customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy… For this reason, some of Microsoft’s customers will be practically unable to vindicate their own Fourth Amendment rights.

Expect the government to make heavy use of its “national security” mantra as it defends itself in this case. Those magic words have allowed all sorts of civil liberties violations in the past and still tend to move courts to the government’s side when deployed in DOJ motions. If the court does side with Microsoft when this is all said and done, it’s likely the remedy won’t be a restriction on gag orders, but more likely something analogous to the rules that now govern National Security Letters — periodic review of gag orders by the government and better avenues for raising challenges for companies affected. Then again, the court could simply punt it back to legislators and push them to fix the 30-year-old law whose dubious constitutionality is the source of numerous lawsuits against the federal government.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: microsoft

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Court Says Microsoft Can Sue Government Over First Amendment-Violating Gag Orders”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment


“The court goes on to point out that frequent use of indefinite gag orders certainly appears to be unconstitutional, given that they act as a “forever” application of prior restraint.”

Any use of gag orders, regardless of length, are unconstitutional as it directly suppresses the 1st Amendment which is obviously the entire point of it!

Nice to see some push back even though the Judge is completely leaving plenty of room for unconstitutional law or activity to remain.


Re: huh?

Not really. Near v. Minnesota is the notable case on the issue, which clearly allows prior restraint for “exceptional circumstances.” Specifically mentioned were national security and obscene material (it’s always fun looking up old court cases, they were really worried about obscenity).

It’s also very common for courts to issue gag orders prohibiting any member of the prosecution or defense from talking to the media about the case.


Re: Re: huh?

Yes Really, there is no shortage of stupid judges and stupid people like you that cannot read mutherfucking english.

The 1st does not state that “exceptional circumstances” are an exception.

“It’s also very common for courts to issue gag orders prohibiting any member of the prosecution or defense from talking to the media about the case.”

The First Amendment is specifically written to prevent this VERY THING!

I just goes to prove that not only do you NOT have any rights, you are too fucking stupid to even understand them and by proxy, do not deserve them, but regardless.. HAVE THEM!

There is a reason every nation gets the government it deserves!

Re: Re:

Citation? When did Microsoft ever have anything remotely like an OS monopoly?

From 1981 until 2007?

Here are some numbers from Net Applications for ’06 and ’07:

And here’s a Forbes article stating MS had 97% of the market in ’00:

which later sabotaged Linux


And no, mass-licencing deals with hardware vendors don’t count.

The judge in US v Microsoft didn’t seem to buy your novel "doesn’t count" legal argument ( ), but hey, what would he know?

…oh, I see, you spell "license" with a "c". That explains your confusion about Microsoft’s market share: you guys had Amiga over there.

Roger Strongsays:

Re: Re: Re:

At all times there were excellent and widely available browser and OS alternatives. It wasn’t a monopoly. Likewise, the so-called "sabotage" was normal competitive behavior in a normal market.

The problem was that it wasn’t a normal market. Microsoft was too successful. With a very large OS market share, it couldn’t and shouldn’t use normal competitive behavior. It needed to dial it back.

It reminds me of the NY Times recounting of an early press-release war between and Barnes & Noble:

In a press release called themselves an "independent bookseller" fighting "goliath." B&N responding with a press release saying, "With a market capitalization of some $7 billion and more than four million customers… your company is now worth more than Barnes & Noble, Borders and all of the independent booksellers combined." then responded with a one word press release: "Oh."

In the case of Netscape’s browser complaint – not getting the insider Windows APIs except in trade for concessions of their own… I don’t have too much sympathy given that at the time Netscape had a browser market share similar to Microsoft’s OS market share.

BTW, I’m in North America. We had Amiga here too. More importantly, OS/2, Mac and various desktop Unix flavors. There was no monopoly.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

At all times there were excellent and widely available browser and OS alternatives.

Which were incompatible with pages and documents that had been designed to be read by Microsoft programs. By design.

The problem was that it wasn’t a normal market. Microsoft was too successful. With a very large OS market share, it couldn’t and shouldn’t use normal competitive behavior.

Deliberately violating standards to lock people into using your product is not "normal competitive behavior". It is the definition of anticompetitive behavior.

BTW, I’m in North America.

Then you misspelled "license".

More importantly, OS/2

Do you seriously need me to run down the ways in which MS deliberately and unnecessarily broke compatibility with OS/2?

Mac and various desktop Unix flavors

With a combined market share of, what, 3%? What’s your definition of "monopoly", exactly? What percentage of a market do you believe a vendor have to have before it qualifies?

That One Guysays:

'That's a feature, not a bug' -USG

The DOJ argued Microsoft didn’t have standing to bring this complaint, as its Fourth Amendment rights aren’t implicated. Only its customers’ are.

Those of course being the same customers that even the judge admits are kept in the dark thanks to the gag orders, such that the only people with standing regarding fourth amendment violations are incapable of showing standing because the government is deliberately keeping them ignorant of the violations of their rights.

The company that’s aware of the violations isn’t allowed to challenge them, and the people who’s rights are being violated aren’t allowed to know about the violations so that they can challenge them.

At that point the judge might as well have come out and flatly stated that the fourth only applies when the government feels like it.

ass hole joesays:

god damn criminals

Microsoft has secured and seized my personal files since 2014.
local operation of govt nation wide have pushed way too far. I am ready to take freedom back NOW before it’s too late. I have never committed a crime yet county assholes and microsoft have made it not possible to prove a set of facts to a jury…..who is kidding who here… ? microsoft shares in the plunder…..

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it