Corporate Accountability

FCC v. AT&T

At issue in FCC v. AT&T was whether corporations are entitled to “personal privacy” under the Freedom of Information Act.

Case Summary

CAC filed a brief in this case on November 16, 2010, that helped answer that question by looking at how the Supreme Court has dealt with similar issues under the Constitution throughout our nation’s history. Like the APA, the Constitution uses the term “persons” (not “corporations”) and the Court, like Congress, has held in a number of contexts that corporations can be treated as “persons” for some purposes related to their legitimate business interests. But, throughout our history, the Court has also treated corporations as fictional persons – qualitatively different from human beings – and consistently held that only living, breathing human beings possess the dignity interests protected by privacy rights.

CAC’s brief argued that FOIA, like our Constitution, protects corporations and human beings differently, and for different reasons. In our brief, we discussed a long line of constitutional cases in which the Court has distinguished between the rights of individuals and those of corporations, particularly in the context of privacy, and argue that the Court should draw a similar distinction in interpreting FOIA. Our brief built off the work CAC has done on “corporate personhood,” both in our narrative, A Capitalist Joker, and in our brief in Citizens United v. FEC.

On March 1, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the FCC as CAC had urged, rejecting AT&T’s meritless argument that corporations are entitled to “personal privacy” under the Freedom of Information Act.

Case Timeline

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
July 11, 2025

This Group’s Record in Front of the Roberts Court Is Mind-Boggling

Slate
In a provocative dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently called out her colleagues on the Supreme Court...
By: Ana Builes, Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services

In Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is considering whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is...
Corporate Accountability
January 28, 2025

Federal Deposit Insurance as Jarkesy Waiver

Yale Journal on Regulation
An argument lurking just beneath the surface in a pending Fifth Circuit case could stem...
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional...
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Ortega v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

In Ortega v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering a challenge to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s authority to...