Source: The Hill
Since this article is not long I decided to post the whole thing. Man, those SCOTUS justices have a tough job, don't they!
Supreme Court finds AT&T isn't a person
By Sara Jerome - 03/01/11 12:44 PM ET
After checking into it, the Supreme Court has concluded that AT&T is not a person.
The justices unanimously rejected an argument by AT&T in a decision handed down on Tuesday. They ruled that corporations do not meet the "personal privacy" standard in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The provision prevents the government from releasing certain documents about individuals in response to FOIA requests.
The opinion reverses a decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which came down on AT&T's side in a surprise to legal observers. AT&T had essentially argued that it has the legal status of a person on this issue, and therefore its documents should not be made public.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (Vt.) immediately hailed Tuesday's decision. He said the American people (as in, not you, AT&T) "have good reason to cheer" the result.
"The Supreme Court’s well-reasoned decision is a timely boost that will help ensure FOIA remains a vibrant and meaningful safeguard for the American people’s right to know," Leahy said.
The decision is not a huge surprise because the justices had revealed a strong skepticism about AT&T's stance during oral arguments.
Part of the company's argument surrounded a mention of "person" in the statute, which was defined to include other entities and corporations. That suggests "personal privacy" should also extend to corporations, the argument went.
Chief Justice John Roberts made that sound laughable during oral arguments. Here is what he said:
"I tried to sit down and come up with other examples where the adjective was very different from the root noun. It turns out it is not hard at all. You have craft and crafty. Totally different. Crafty doesn't have much to do with craft. Squirrel, squirrely. Right? I mean, pastor -- you have a pastor and pastoral. Same root, totally different."
I'm confused. This is a corporation appointed court or not?
"In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Does this still apply or not?
Hmmm. Well, given that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals finding in favor of AT&T came as a surprise to legal observers AND that this is the SCOTUS and it UNANIMOUSLY decided that AT&T is NOT a person... then it must be correct.
The ruling is only with respect to treatment of corporations vis a vis the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
I'm not a legal observer or scholar, but what I take this to mean is that AT&T cannot hide behind its corporate status to have its information protected by FOIA.
Still a person, just can't hide from the freedom of information act, I take it.
No, NOT a person. Can't hide from the freedom of information act.
This is bogus. There is no "right" to demand every item of information from a company.
AT&T may have erred in claiming "personhood" as a reason to retain the right to hold your own information, but in no way does every company fall under the idea that "all your information are ours".
The FOIA is used to request information from the government, not companies. In this case it was information that AT&T had submitted to the FCC. The request was made by an AT&T competitor, which to me doesn't seem to be what the FOIA was meant to do.
I'm paying those 9 idiots to decide that a telephone company is NOT a person?
what a horrible investment.
Corporate "personhood" is not as simple as you make it sound. Technically, according to the law a corporation is a person. See U.S. Code Title 1, 1 which says "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals". It is a pretty complicated topic and has been an ongoing debate since the founding of the country.
The question in this case was whether a corporation can claim a personal privacy exemption in a FOIA request. I actually find it pretty interesting - and potentially pretty important. And if you compare it to last years Citizens United v FEC, it almost seems contradictory. I don't know, I'm no law expert, it just seems like it could be a bigger deal than it is given credit for.
by Rishad I Habib 7 years ago
& what do you think about Julian Assange? Do you appreciate what he is doing or is it the opposite? Is he the main man or just another pawn, playing the role of a show man? I did not knw much about him until recently & I personally felt that the rape charges were side effects of his actions...
by Joan Whetzel 6 years ago
Have you ever made use of the Freedom of Information Act to obtain information?What kind of information? Did you run into any difficulties?
by nightwork4 6 years ago
Should the vatican be forced to open their records to the public?is it ok for the vatican to keep so many secrets or does this undermind the whole point of religion?
by LiamBean 8 years ago
The Supreme Court recently voted 5:4 to grant corporations unlimited rights toward funding political activities. Should this sort of right be limited to living breathing citizens of the United States or should any legally defined entity have that right?In choosing your answer please consider that...
by Sharlee 4 months ago
My question - In general, how do you feel about the right to religious freedom being used in this specific Supreme Court decision? Does one have the right to discriminate due to a religious belief? The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of a Colorado cake baker who refused to make a...
by Ralph Schwartz 4 days ago
Following the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, some Democratic groups are how debating a new tactic; pushing a scheme to "balance" the court by adding more seats (which they hope to fill will Liberal Judges).Additionally, Democrat think-tanks are proposing to end the lifetime tenure of...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|