Opinion ID: 614604
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ecpa

Text: The threshold question in this case is whether the plain language of the ECPA extends to foreign citizens. See, e.g., Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 534, 124 S.Ct. 1023, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004) (The starting point in discerning congressional intent is the existing statutory text[.]) If the Court finds that the plain language of the statute is clear on its face, the Court does not need to consider the legislative history and policy of the ECPA, although they may still be instructive. See id. at 539, 124 S.Ct. 1023 (finding it unnecessary to rely on the legislative history when the plain language of the statute was clear, but finding it an instructive way to lend support to its holding); see also Am. Rivers v. FERC, 201 F.3d 1186, 1204 (9th Cir.1999) ([W]e are mindful that this Court steadfastly abides by the principle that `legislative historyno matter how clearcan't override statutory text.') (quoting Hearn v. W. Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, 68 F.3d 301, 304 (9th Cir.1995)).