Corporate Personhood Redux

Posted in Anticipation, Law and Politics by Mike Sacks on September 28, 2010

Among the fourteen cases the Supreme Court added to its docket today, FCC v. AT&T most caught my attention.  The case asks whether corporations can claim personhood so to qualify for the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 7(C), which exempts from mandatory disclosure records collected for law enforcement purposes when such disclosure could “reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

The Third Circuit ruled that because the statute defined “person” as an “individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization other than an agency,” then corporations were entitled to 7(C)’s “personal privacy” exemption.  The FCC’s petition for certiorari, signed by then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan–who will be recused for this case–argued that the Third Circuit’s ruling upset a thirty-five year understanding that the “personal privacy” exemption only applied to individuals.

To bolster their case, the FCC cited then-Professor Scalia’s 1981 testimony before Congress that Exemption 7 did not protect “associational or institutional” privacy from mandatory disclosure upon request.

Although this case will ultimately turn on statutory construction, it still hearkens back to last year’s Citizens United, which established that corporations are legal persons whose independent campaign expenditures cannot be limited under the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

What makes this case even more interesting is that next Tuesday, the Court will hear argument in NASA v. Nelson, which asks whether a government employee has a right to “informational privacy” that allows him to withhold information in government background checks.  Specifically at issue is whether an employee, once established he has done drugs, may then refuse to disclose if he has obtained treatment for the drug use.  Justice Kagan will also recuse herself in this case.

Informational privacy is hardly a deeply established fundamental right.  Even if it were, and if the Court’s conservative bloc embraced it, drug-tinged cases tend to soften the justices’ principles.  In Gonzales v. Raich, Justice Scalia voted to approve Congress’s Commerce Clause power to ban the personal cultivation of medical marijuana, despite his earlier votes to restrict the Commerce Clause’s scope and later votes to cabin the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause.  And in Morse v. Frederick, Chief Justice Roberts, who takes a largely robust view of the First Amendment, found a high school student’s unfurled banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” to be unprotected pro-drug speech under the Court’s First Amendment-for-students doctrines.

In contrast to AT&T, the issue in NASA is not statutory, but constitutional.  Further, it is grounded in an individual’s Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, not in one’s First Amendment rights, which was the flashpoint of last year’s corporate personhood contest.  Still, if the Court rejects an individual’s right to informational privacy, but embraces a corporation’s ability to withhold information under the personal privacy exemption, expect some commentators’ heads to explode.

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Federal Farmer said, on September 28, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    I think important to maintain the distinction that corps aren’t persons but they can be thought of as persons when evaluating rights.

    Corporations aren’t real people but they are comprised of real people and those people are deemed to have certain rights even when exercised via their corporation.

  2. Joe said, on September 28, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    off topic, I hope to hear you .02 on the new audio tape policy which an impressive advancement.

    Click to access audiotape-release-9-28-10.pdf

  3. Wednesday round-up : SCOTUSblog said, on September 29, 2010 at 9:24 am

    […] the Atlantic, Bloomberg, the Associated Press (via the Los Angeles Times), Courthouse News Service, First One @ One First, and Reuters (via ABC News) all have articles or blog posts devoted exclusively to the case. A pair […]

  4. […] High Court to further consider status of corporation as “person” under federal law, this time FOIA (First One @ One First) […]

  5. […] United?,” about the Court’s Citizens United decision. Related, see this preview of FCC v. AT&T, a case in the 2010 term that follows up on the idea of corporate […]

Leave a Reply to Supreme Oktoberfest « QuestionsPresented Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: