Supreme Court Rules That Corporations

Have No Right to Personal Privacy

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that corporations do not have a right of personal privacy under freedom of information laws in an opinion that derided AT&T for its grammatical conclusions.  As with many cases that reach the high Courts there was a question as to the meaning of a particular word that was not defined by the law.

Freedom of Information Act’s Privacy Exception Does Not Apply to Corporations

It has long been held by the Supreme Court and many state laws consider corporations as a “person” for the purpose of many statutes, including criminal laws.  However, does this mean that personal privacy applies to a corporation or is the personification merely an identification of an entity. The case involves AT&T’s quest to keep secret information gathered in an investigation by the Federal Communications Commission. The company sought an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act for records that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Court’s Give the Ordinary Meaning To Words Not Otherwise Defined in the Laws

“We trust that AT&T will not take it personally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote at the conclusion of his 8-0 opinion (PDF) for the court.

“Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns, but not always,” Roberts wrote. “Sometimes they acquire distinct meanings of their own. 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.’ … ‘Corny’ can mean ‘using familiar and stereotyped formulas believed to appeal to the unsophisticated,’ … which has little to do with ‘corn.’ … And while ‘crank’ is ‘a part of anaxis bent at right angles,’ ‘cranky’ can mean ‘given to fretful fussiness.’ ”  Because “personal” is not defined in the statute, Roberts wrote, it must be given its ordinary meaning. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the decision.

The AT&T opinion is in contrast to the controversial Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which treated corporations as persons with free speech rights to spend money in federal election campaigns.  Free speech rights may apply to corporations but no personal privacy rights will be extended to the corporate world.