Supreme Court Rules on AT&T Case

Rocket River · Mar 3, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02scotus.html?_r=1

I think this is a Good Ruling.
At least on the surface.

Rocket River

WASHINGTON — In a lively decision that relied as much on dictionaries, grammar and usage as it did on legal analysis, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that corporations have no personal privacy rights for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.
Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the court’s decision.

AT&T, the plaintiff in the case, had sought to block the release of documents it had provided to the government. It argued that the documents should be withheld under an exemption to the law that applied to records that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

The company’s strongest argument was that the statutory definition of the noun “person” specifically included corporations and other entities. It followed, the company said, that the adjective “personal” must also apply to corporations.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, was having none of that.

“Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns,” he wrote, “but not always.” He gave examples.

“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,’ ” he wrote, quoting a dictionary. “ ‘Corny,’” he went on, “has little to do with ‘corn.’ ”

Chief Justice Roberts had used similar examples at the argument of the case in January.

“You have ‘craft’ and ‘crafty’,” he said. “Totally different. ‘Crafty’ doesn’t have much to do with ‘craft.’ ‘Squirrel,’ ‘squirrelly.’ Right?”

“ ‘Pastor’ and ‘pastoral’,” he continued. “Same root, totally different.”

Common usage cut against AT&T’s argument as well, the chief justice wrote in Tuesday’s decision. “We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence or personal tragedy as referring to corporations and other artificial entities,” he wrote.

“Responding to a request for information, an individual might say, ‘that’s personal’,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “A company spokeswoman, when asked for information about the company, would not.

“In fact, we often use the word ‘personal’ to mean precisely the opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company’s view.”

In addition to considering dictionary definitions for and the common usage of the word “personal” standing alone, Chief Justice Roberts said the word should also be considered in the context of the phrase “personal privacy.” Here, too, he said, “AT&T’s effort to attribute a special legal meaning to the word ‘personal’ in this particular context is wholly unpersuasive.”

“Two words together may assume a more particular meaning than those words in isolation,” he wrote, adding that “personal privacy” suggests “a kind of privacy evocative of human concerns.”

The chief justice had examples here, too. “We understand a golden cup to be a cup made of or resembling gold,” he wrote. “A golden boy, on the other hand, is one who is charming, lucky and talented. A golden opportunity is one not to be missed.”

In January 2010, the court ruled in the Citizens United decision that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend money in candidate elections. But that decision involved a question of constitutional law, while Tuesday’s decision in AT&T v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 09-1279, considered only the meaning of a statute.

AT&T had provided documents to the F.C.C. in connection with its investigation into claims of overcharges by the company in a program to provide equipment and services to schools. The documents were then sought by a trade association representing some of the company’s competitors.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, had ruled for the company, saying that “corporations, like human beings, face public embarrassment, harassment and stigma” because of their involvement in law enforcement investigations.

Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision, having worked on it as United States solicitor general. The decision was otherwise comprehensively dismissive of AT&T’s arguments, and Chief Justice Roberts could not resist a parting shot in ruling against the company

“We trust that AT&T will not take it personally,” he wrote.
Click to expand...

geeimsobored · Mar 3, 2011

A unanimous court ruling on something relevant. That's a new one.

Forums

Supreme Court Rules on AT&T Case

Rocket River Member

geeimsobored Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!