John Roberts' Clever Wit in "AT&T v. FCC" Opinion

  • Thread starter BobG
  • Start date
In summary, the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase "personal privacy" in Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not extend to corporations. This means that corporations are not entitled to the same privacy protection as individuals under FOIA. However, certain information may still be protected under a different exemption. This decision was made in response to a case involving AT&T and their argument that FOIA should not apply to corporations.
  • #1
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
352
88
Funny supreme court decision written by Roberts. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1279.pdf

AT&T’s argument treats the term “personal privacy” as simply the sum of its two words: the privacy of a person. Under that view, the defined meaning of the noun “person,” or the asserted specialized legal meaning, takes on greater significance. But two words together may assume a more particular meaning than those words in isolation. We understand a golden cup to be a cup made of or resembling gold. A golden boy, on the other hand, is one who is charming, lucky, and talented. A golden opportunity is one not to be missed. “Personal” in the phrase “personal privacy” conveys more than just “of a person.” It suggests a type of privacy evocative of human concerns—not the sort usually associated with an entity like, say, AT&T.

We reject the argument that because “person” is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase “personal privacy” in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
DanP said:
Cant this ruling be interpreted that a juridical person is not entitled to privacy of any kind ?

Depends on how much money the juridical person sends us:

Dear Nigerian Juridical Person:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson
 
  • #4
No, I am asking if information about a company internals reached the government, following a investigation or anything, is there anything which can be considered private after this ruling ?

Or anyone can use FOIA to claim now access to knowledge about internals of the company, books, etc, from gov because they are not longer offered any privacy ?
 
  • #5
No. Some information is still protected from FOIA via a different exemption (Exemption 4 - trade secrets and commercial or financial secrets). AT&T wanted to prevent the disclosure of some other information that would be embarrassing to the company.
 
  • #6
We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

Brilliant!
 

FAQ: John Roberts' Clever Wit in "AT&T v. FCC" Opinion

1. What is the "AT&T v. FCC" opinion and why is it significant?

The "AT&T v. FCC" opinion refers to the 2011 Supreme Court case where AT&T argued that it should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because it is a corporation and not a person. The case is significant because it sparked a debate on the legal personhood of corporations and their right to privacy.

2. Why is John Roberts' clever wit mentioned in relation to this opinion?

John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote the majority opinion in the "AT&T v. FCC" case. In his writing, he used clever rhetoric and wordplay to make his arguments, which caught the attention of legal experts and the media.

3. What did John Roberts say in his opinion that was considered clever?

One of the most notable lines from John Roberts' opinion is when he wrote, "We trust that AT&T will not take it personally." This was in response to AT&T's argument that it should be exempt from FOIA because it is not a person. Roberts used this line to make a subtle joke about the irony of a corporation claiming to have personal privacy rights.

4. Is John Roberts' use of clever wit common in Supreme Court opinions?

No, John Roberts' use of clever wit in his opinions is not common. His writing style is often seen as more restrained and formal compared to other justices. However, his use of clever rhetoric in the "AT&T v. FCC" case was unique and garnered attention from legal experts and the media.

5. How did John Roberts' clever wit impact the outcome of the "AT&T v. FCC" case?

John Roberts' clever wit did not directly impact the outcome of the case. The majority opinion ultimately ruled in favor of AT&T, stating that corporations have the right to privacy under FOIA. However, Roberts' use of clever rhetoric did add an interesting and memorable element to the opinion and sparked discussions about the legal personhood of corporations.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top