Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will once again find itself wrestling with the balance between digital privacy and law enforcement — an uncomfortable yet increasingly common challenge for the justices. They’ll hear an hour of arguments in Microsoft v. United States, a potentially momentous case involving emails that are stored on overseas servers.

The issue: If an American email provider stores your emails on a server that's located in another country, does it have to hand those emails over in response to a warrant from U.S. law enforcement?

What they’re saying: The case hinges on the Stored Communications Act of 1986, in which Congress required law enforcement to get a warrant to search electronically stored communications.

  • The Justice Department argues that Congress clearly intended for companies like Microsoft to “disclose electronic communications within its control, regardless of whether the provider stores those communications in the United States or abroad.”
  • If search warrants don’t cover emails stored overseas, the Justice Department argues, that provides an easy path to get away with crimes including terrorism, child pornography and drug trafficking.

The other side: Microsoft accuses the government of making a policy argument, not a legal one — and those decisions are up to Congress, not the courts.

  • In the meantime, it argues, a ruling in the government’s favor here would open the door to retaliation.
  • “If the U.S. government obtains the power to search and seize foreign citizens’ private communications physically stored in other countries, it will invite other governments to do the same thing,” Microsoft president and chief legal officer Brad Smith wrote in a blog post. “If we ignore other countries’ laws, how can we demand that they respect our laws?”

Between the lines: This is the second big case this term that forces the court to fit modern technology into a legal structure written long ago. The court heard arguments in November in a case about law enforcement’s access to cell-phone location records.

  • It’s not a place the justices are very comfortable. During the cell-phone arguments, they wrestled with the clear limits of the legal precedent before them as well as the need to write their ruling in a way that doesn’t tie a future court’s hands as technology continues to evolve.
  • Expect to see similar hand-wringing this week. Cases that pit privacy against law enforcement can scramble the court’s left-right divide; the application to modern technology can scramble them even more.

Go deeper

Updated 30 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

  1. Global: Total confirmed cases as of 4:30 p.m. ET: 30,306,469 — Total deaths: 948,147— Total recoveries: 20,626,515Map.
  2. U.S.: Total confirmed cases as of 4:30 p.m. ET: 6,705,114 — Total deaths: 198,197 — Total recoveries: 2,540,334 — Total tests: 92,163,649Map.
  3. Politics: In reversal, CDC again recommends coronavirus testing for asymptomatic people.
  4. Health: Massive USPS face mask operation called off The risks of moving too fast on a vaccine.
  5. Business: Unemployment drop-off reverses course 1 million mortgage-holders fall through safety netHow the pandemic has deepened Boeing's 737 MAX crunch.
  6. Education: At least 42% of school employees are vulnerable.

Court battles shift mail-in voting deadlines in battleground states

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Michigan joins Pennsylvania in extending mail-in ballot deadlines by several days after the election, due to the coronavirus pandemic and expected delays in U.S. Postal Service.

The latest: Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens ruled that all ballots postmarked before Nov. 2 must be counted, so long as they arrive in the mail before election results are certified. Michigan will certify its general election results on Nov. 23.

Ina Fried, author of Login
59 mins ago - Technology

Interview: Unity CEO explains his company's unusual IPO

CEO John Riccitiello virtually ringing the NYSE bell as Unity shares began trading on Friday. PhotoL Unity

Unity Technologies was just one of many companies with blockbuster IPOs this week, but it took a decidedly different approach, using data rather than handshakes to decide who got to invest and at what price. CEO John Riccitiello explained why in an interview with Axios.

Why it matters: Traditionally, bankers and companies set IPO prices based on conversations and expectations, a process that has been criticized as basically leaving money on the table.