03/02/2020 In re 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc. :: 2017 :: New York Court of Appeals Decisions :: New York Case Law :: New York Law :: US … Construction Prods. Research, Inc., 73 F 3d at 469). This exception is facially inapplicable to warrants issued in criminal proceedings.[FN8] Contrary to the dissent's assertion, neither the Second Circuit (nor any other court directly addressing appealability) has determined, or even suggested, that an order denying a motion to quash an SCA warrant would be treated as a final order in an independent proceeding or as an order resolving a motion to quash an administrative subpoena for finality and appealability purposes. Indeed, recognizing the finality limitation on the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts, the parties in Matter of Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp. (829 F3d at 205) stipulated to a contempt finding so as to secure appellate jurisdiction (see generally Ryan, 402 US at 532-533). Furthermore, the Second Circuit's conclusion that the plain language of the SCA evidences Congress's intent to recognize the legal distinction between warrants and subpoenas profoundly undermines the dissent's prediction that orders pertaining to such warrants would, for appealability purposes, be treated as orders relating to subpoenas (see Matter of Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F3d at 205). Nor are we persuaded that federal law would otherwise preempt our dismissal of these appeals, which rests "squarely on . . . neutral state rule[s] for administering state court[]" jurisdiction (Johnson v Fankell, 520 US 911, 912 [1997]). "The general rule, 'bottomed deeply in belief in the importance of state control of state judicial procedure, is that federal law takes the state courts as it finds them,'" and "[s]tates thus have great latitude to establish the structure and jurisdiction of their own courts" (Johnson, 520 US at 919, quoting Hart, The Relations Between State and Federal Law, 54 Colum L Rev 489, 508 1954]). Our jurisdictional limitations do not discriminate against third-party provider claims under the SCA but, rather, "reflect the concerns of power over the person and competence over the subject matter that jurisdictional rules are designed to protect" (Haywood v Drown, 556 US 729, 739 [2009]). Moreover, our holding does [*11]not impose any burden on any right the SCA may provide to Facebook to move to quash the warrants at issue here. The SCA provides no express right to appeal, and the United States Supreme Court "has never held that the States are required to establish avenues of appellate review" (M.L.B. v S.L.J., 519 US 102, 111 [1996], quoting Rinaldi v Yeager, 384 US 305, 310 [1966]; see Johnson, 520 US at 919; Kohl v Lehlback, 160 US 293, 299 [1895] ["the right of review in an appellate court is purely a matter of state concern"]). V. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2017/16.html 11/44