Cybersecurity Policy Report, Panel Finds Direction in Supreme Court Location History Search Decision, (Jul 9, 2026)

By Jeff Williams

Though numerous thorny and weighty questions regarding privacy protections remain unresolved, the Supreme Court’s recent decision that location history data access constitutes a “search” marked the latest step in the high court’s increasingly complex task of trying to interpret the Constitution in light of technological changes, panelists said today during an event hosted by the Congressional Internet Caucus Academy.

“I think that what we’re actually seeing is perhaps less of a tech savviness [among justices] and more of a going back to first principles and recognizing that technology does not change those basic founding American principles,” said Jennifer Huddleston, senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

The justices are "able to take something like the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment and recognize that while the founders might not have understood a smartphone, they understood the principles of what they were trying to do in terms of protecting the people and apply that to the digital age,” she said.

In a 6-3 decision in Okello Chatrie v. U.S. (case 25-112), the Supreme Court ruled that police conducted a “search” when they gained access to location history data of a robbery suspect (CPR, June 29). The high court also remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Richmond) to consider whether a geofence warrant served on Google LLC that directed the company to scan more than 500 million users of Google’s location capability was reasonable. The petitioner’s attorney argued during the oral argument that the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

The decision “at least establishes a growing awareness” at the Supreme Court about data privacy rights and "probably provides a reasonably strong leg to stand on” for companies receiving search warrant requests that "want to push back in trying to protect their consumers,” Ms. Huddleston said.

Paul Taske, director of NetChoice’s Litigation Center, said there should be “specificity and granularity” in search warrant requests to ensure basic constitutional protections remain in place.

“These are protections for all of us,” he said, adding that the Supreme Court was “very clear that the goal here, when we’re talking about emerging, new technology, is to make sure that the same level of security and protection and privacy that was enjoyed by the people at the time the Fourth Amendment was ratified is enjoyed by them today.”

Mr. Taske also noted that there were "going to be these sorts of gray areas” regarding data privacy issues in which the "courts are either going to have to address them or potentially open the question for legislators to take action” at the federal or state level.

“This is a time for Congress and the states, frankly, to do something” legislatively to protect consumer data, he said.

Jake Laperruque, deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Security and Surveillance Project, highlighted the importance of the Supreme Court’s saying that geolocation information, narrowed to any duration, “is so sensitive and so revealing” that it should be protected.

But while that "gives us a pretty clear path” for cellphone records, other privacy concerns remain regarding access through warrants to data from things such as facial recognition and license plate readers, he said.

In addition, Mr. Laperruque said, whether the government should be allowed to obtain consumers' personal information through data brokers is a “big, totally unresolved question from this case.”

Noting how long it had been since the warrant was obtained in the still ongoing Chatrie case, Mr. Laperruque said the data broker issue was "an area where, more than anyplace else in this space, we need Congress to step in and act because it’s not moving fast enough for the courts to address it in a timely manner.”

News: FederalLegislation LitigationEnforcement DataPrivacy