Opinion ID: 614604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: 2 Plain Text of the ECPA

Text: The Court affirms the district court's finding that the plain text of the ECPA applies its terms to any person, without qualification. 18 U.S.C. § 2510(13). Any person means any person, including foreign citizens. The Court also finds that the statute as a whole confirms that Congress intended the term any person to cover non-citizens. Two strong arguments bolster this conclusion. First, 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b) and (c) list numerous exceptions to the rule as set forth in § 2702(a), which prohibits the knowing divulgence of the contents of a communication while in electronic storage. But neither § 2702(b) nor (c) list citizenship as an exception. Second, 18 U.S.C. § 2510(13) defines a user as any person or entity who(A) uses an electronic communication service; and (B) is duly authorized by the provider of such service to engage in such use. The statute starts with the very broad term any person or entity and then limits it with two conjunctive qualifications. Microsoft and Sridhar argue that Congress could have added other requirements, such as U.S. citizenship, if that were the intent behind the ECPA. The fact that Congress did not do so indicates that it did not want to impose any additional limitations. The reasoning of O'Rourke v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 684 F.Supp. 716 (D.D.C.1988) supports the Court's analysis. In O'Rourke, the court found that the phrase any person in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., should be read according to its plain meaning. Id. at 718. The court stated, On its face, then, the statute's provisions are not restricted to citizens. Id. The O'Rourke court contrasted the FOIA language with a provision in the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(2), which specified that its provisions apply only to a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted. Id. The O'Rourke court concluded that Congress thus distinguishes between a `citizen' and `any person' when it wishes to do so. Id. Like the FOIA statute, the ECPA does not facially restrict its applicability to U.S. citizens. And as the court recognized in O'Rourke, Congress knows how to explicitly limit a statute to U.S. citizens when it intends to do so. The Court finds that the plain language of the ECPA extends its protections to non-citizens. The Court is therefore obligated to enforce the statute as written. See Lamie, 540 U.S. at 534, 124 S.Ct. 1023 (It is well established that when the statute's language is plain, the sole function of the courtsat least where the disposition required by the text is not absurdis to enforce it according to its terms.) (quoting Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6, 120 S.Ct. 1942, 147 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)).