Supreme Court rejects 'personal privacy' for corporations in FoIA case

[Modbert]

Supreme Court: Ruling by Supreme Court rejects 'personal privacy' for corporations - latimes.com

Corporations do not have a right to "personal privacy," the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, at least when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act and the release of documents held by the government.

While not alluding to the criticism, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took a scalpel to a corporate-rights claim from AT&T that its "personal privacy" deserves to be protected. The ordinary meaning of "personal" does not refer to an impersonal company, he said.

All the justices agreed in FCC v. AT&T, with the exception of Kagan, who did not participate. "We trust that AT&T will not take it personally," Roberts said in a parting comment.

 

[Valerie]

Supreme Court: Ruling by Supreme Court rejects 'personal privacy' for corporations - latimes.com

Corporations do not have a right to "personal privacy," the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, at least when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act and the release of documents held by the government.

While not alluding to the criticism, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took a scalpel to a corporate-rights claim from AT&T that its "personal privacy" deserves to be protected. The ordinary meaning of "personal" does not refer to an impersonal company, he said.

All the justices agreed in FCC v. AT&T, with the exception of Kagan, who did not participate. "We trust that AT&T will not take it personally," Roberts said in a parting comment.

View attachment 12939

How come Kagan didn't participate???

 

[Sallow]

Hmm..wonder if this is the beginning of the end of Corporations being considered "persons" with limited liability.

 

[Modbert]

How come Kagan didn't participate???

More information after the jump.

AT&T won a ruling based on that provision from the U.S. court of appeals in Philadelphia. Its judges noted one part of the law defines "person" to include not just an individual but also a "partnership, association or corporation."

Then, U.S. Solicitor Gen. Elena Kagan appealed the issue to the Supreme Court. She said the Freedom of Information Act had never been interpreted to protect the "personal privacy" of companies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought the Roberts court was pro business, and thought corporations were people. What happened?

 

[Sallow]

I thought the Roberts court was pro business, and thought corporations were people. What happened?

Some Justices start off staunch conservatives and sort of get better with age. Like wine.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Supreme Court: Ruling by Supreme Court rejects 'personal privacy' for corporations - latimes.com

Corporations do not have a right to "personal privacy," the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, at least when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act and the release of documents held by the government.

All the justices agreed in FCC v. AT&T, with the exception of Kagan, who did not participate. "We trust that AT&T will not take it personally," Roberts said in a parting comment.

View attachment 12939

How come Kagan didn't participate???

I heard that she had an appointment to wax her hairy lip and couldn't attend. ~BH

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought the Roberts court was pro business, and thought corporations were people. What happened?

Some Justices start off staunch conservatives and sort of get better with age. Like wine.

Or, possibly, the meme that this court is pro business is total BS.

 

[FA_Q2]

I thought the Roberts court was pro business, and thought corporations were people. What happened?

Some Justices start off staunch conservatives and sort of get better with age. Like wine.

Or, possibly, the meme that this court is pro business is total BS.

As is the BS that everyone keeps complaining that the courts are treating corporations as individual people. Just because there was a ruling that allows corporations certain free speech rights as collective groups of people does not translate into them being treated as individuals. That has always been a bullshit complaint. The ruling then was correct as the ruling here. Public entities have no personal freedom right. They are public by their very nature.

 

[BenNatuf]

Hmm..wonder if this is the beginning of the end of Corporations being considered "persons" with limited liability.

Corporations themselves do not have limitted liability, the owners do. As to personhood, why would an assembly of persons lose their first amendment rights by virtue of thier assembledge?