The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a landmark case that could determine whether the government’s mass digital surveillance dragnet violates your constitutional rights—and the Trump administration’s Justice Department tried to stop the case from being heard.
Story Highlights
- Supreme Court will decide if “geofence warrants” that sweep up location data from hundreds of millions of Americans violate the Fourth Amendment
- Law enforcement obtained warrant forcing Google to search 500-600 million users’ location histories to identify 19 people near a crime scene
- Trump administration Justice Department urged Supreme Court not to take the case, defending broad surveillance powers
- Ruling expected by July 2026 will affect all smartphone users and set precedent for digital privacy protections nationwide
Government Dragnet Searches Half a Billion Americans
In 2019, law enforcement obtained a geofence warrant forcing Google to search its Sensorvault database containing location histories for 500 to 600 million users. The warrant covered a 150-meter radius around a Richmond, Virginia credit union during a one-hour window, ultimately identifying 19 people whose only “crime” was being near a bank when it was robbed. This isn’t targeted investigation—it’s a digital dragnet that treats every American carrying a smartphone as a potential suspect without individualized probable cause.
Constitutional Protections Under Assault
The Fourth Amendment was written specifically to prevent the kind of general warrants British authorities used against American colonists—broad searches targeting places and times rather than specific individuals suspected of crimes. Geofence warrants are the modern equivalent, demanding technology companies turn over location data for all devices in an area without naming any suspect. Legal experts warn this practice “risks normalizing suspicionless dragnet searches which erode the line between government power and individual privacy,” according to the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Trump Administration Defends Surveillance State
Despite President Trump’s criticism of government overreach during the Biden years, his Justice Department attorneys urged the Supreme Court not to hear this case. They argued that Google’s 2023 changes to location data storage practices made the issue moot and that investigators’ actions were reasonable. This position reveals uncomfortable continuity with the surveillance state apparatus built under previous administrations. The administration’s stance prioritizes law enforcement convenience over constitutional protections that safeguard every American’s privacy.
Your Data, Their Database
The implications extend far beyond Google. Apple, Uber, Lyft, Snapchat, X, Microsoft, and cellular carriers all maintain similar location databases. If the Fourth Circuit’s ruling stands, law enforcement could demand mass searches of any of these databases without probable cause against specific individuals. Federal Public Defender technology specialist Kyana Givens characterizes geofence warrants as “the most important Fourth Amendment issue of this generation.” Every smartphone user who shares location data with apps—which is virtually everyone—faces exposure to government surveillance.
Fractured Court Reveals Legal Confusion
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued eight concurring opinions and one dissent trying to justify upholding the conviction, revealing deep disagreement about how constitutional protections apply to digital data. Chief Judge Diaz noted that even short location data snippets reveal highly sensitive information about medical visits and religious institutions. Judge Wynn criticized the third-party doctrine—the legal theory that you forfeit privacy rights by sharing data with companies—as “several decades beyond its time.” This fractured reasoning demonstrates why Supreme Court clarification is urgently needed.
The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by July 2026, will establish whether the Fourth Amendment provides meaningful protection for the digital records that document our daily lives. Brent Skorup of the Cato Institute frames the stakes clearly: this is the Court’s opportunity to “clarify whether Americans own and retain privacy rights in their sensitive digital records” and to “reaffirm that suspicionless digital dragnets have no place in a free society.” The case tests whether constitutional protections written to restrain government power in 1791 can constrain 21st-century surveillance technologies that turn every smartphone into a tracking device and every technology company into a potential government informant.
Sources:
Supreme Court to Decide if Geofence Warrants Violate Fourth Amendment – GBlock
Supreme Court to weigh legality of geofence warrants – Politico
