SCOTUS Decision in Chatrie Is a Major Win in the Fight for Data Privacy
| |
As you move through the world with a phone in your pocket, you likely leave a trail of digital breadcrumbs. For years, the government treated this trail as theirs for the taking, arguing that the moment you handed your location data to a third-party company, you ceded your right to privacy.
On June 29, the Supreme Court rejected that idea in Chatrie v. United States, a case in which police used a sweeping “geofence warrant” to demand data on every phone near a crime scene. The Court held that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search the moment they access your location history, regardless of the data revealed or whether it’s held by a third party — meaning that law enforcement will generally need a warrant to get such information. The Court also declared a vital new standard: that cell phone users do not consent to government surveillance “just by doing the ordinary things cell-phone users do.”
| |
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not decide when geofence warrants are constitutional. Further, the ruling does not address the broader class of “reverse warrants,” or the “data broker loophole” that allows the government to routinely buy private data to circumvent warrant protections. Thus, this ruling should energize the push for stronger privacy protections, like the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act.
The case will now return to the Fourth Circuit, which must decide whether the geofence warrant at the center of Chatrie was backed by probable cause and was sufficiently particular. An eventual decision may cue a return trip to the Supreme Court.
CDT has followed this case from the beginning, filing an amicus brief and identifying the case as a fork in the road for Fourth Amendment rights in the digital world. While we celebrate this victory, we remain vigilant in ensuring Congress, regulators, and courts uphold the ruling’s promise.
| |
— CDT played an active role responding to President Trump’s July speech about the integrity of the 2020 elections. We highlighted CDT’s report documenting the extensive investigations that took place, which found that no vulnerabilities in voting systems were exploited to alter election outcomes. Before the speech, CDT’s Geoff Hale gave critical context around vulnerabilities in voting systems, explaining that while they’re real and worth fixing, the way they can be used to fearmonger doesn’t reflect the actual security of elections. We also pointed to key context, noting that the President’s call to ensure the most “honest, fair, and secure elections anywhere in the world” comes just as the Administration fired bipartisan members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, cut funding to CISA, undermined threat intelligence sharing, and has pushed for the controversial SAVE Act — actions which each significantly threaten U.S. elections. We were widely quoted in media coverage of the speech, including by NPR, CBS, and the New York Times.
— CDT submitted comments opposing the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed overhaul of the rules governing federal financial assistance. The proposed rule conditions eligibility to conduct scientific research on ideological allegiance, prohibiting federal funding for entire bodies of research, including those involving disparate impact liability or LGBTQ+ people. The proposal specifically threatens research on content moderation and AI bias, treating standard empirical methods for studying online platforms and AI systems as suspect or ideological.
| |
 | Illustration of a brightly colored chatbot with a “…” response, while generating text, music, and images (seen via swirling papers, musical notes, and image preview icons).
|
|
— As part of CDT’s ongoing work to advance best practices in trust and safety, we examined the increasing role of third-party vendors and automated content moderation systems, highlighting key questions for accountability, transparency, and users’ rights.
— In light of the Trump Administration’s unprecedented effort to pool federal, state, and local government-held data, a new CDT resource explains the risks and benefits of government data consolidation and the impact of how such consolidation happens on a technical level.
— CDT joined an amicus brief in support of a challenge to Texas’s App Store Accountability Act, which requires app stores to verify all users’ ages and to get parents’ approval when minors download apps or access apps with any “significant changes.” We argue that the flaws in the law would chill access to critical speech and other online services for kids and adults alike.
—We published new updates to our privacy policy that make it more user-friendly, and help you understand how we treat your data when you interact with us.
| |
 | Graphic for CDT’s podcast, entitled “CDT’s Tech Talks.” Hosted by Jamal Magby, and available on iTunes, Soundcloud, Spotify, Stitcher, and TuneIn. Dark grey text and app logos, as well as light blue text, on a white background.
|
| CDT "In Person"
— Don’t miss the latest episode of CDT’s Tech Talks! In the most recent episode, CDT’s Jamal Magby and Kate Ruane are joined by the Future of Free Speech’s Ashkhen Kazaryan. They analyze the legal, policy, and constitutional questions posed by the FCC’s decision to seek public comment on whether ABC’s The View qualifies as a bona fide news program.
| |
 | Graphic for CDT's Tech Prom. Blue and white text on a striped black and blue background.
|
|
— Don’t miss CDT’s 2026 Tech Prom! Join us at the LINE DC on Thursday, November 12, 2026 for a fun night of networking and conversation — you won’t want to miss it! Sponsorships and individual tickets are available now.
| |
 | CDT's Miranda Bogen appears on Good Morning America on July 23.
|
|
—CDT’s Aliya Bhatia and the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Caitlin Vogus wrote for the Intercept on how an online age verification law could kill whistleblowing.
— Speaking with MS NOW about cuts to federal election cybersecurity assistance for states and localities, CDT’s Tim Harper said, “Expecting local election officials to handle nation-state cyber attacks without federal support isn’t common sense policy. It’s a national security failure.”
— CDT’s Tom Bowman was quoted by 404 Media about the use of Flock to track individual people across camera networks: “This is a classic bait-and-switch. Your town was pitched a tool to catch stolen cars and find missing kids,” he said. “It's like being sold a smoke detector and only later finding out it's been recording every conversation in your house.”
— CDT’s Sydney Saubestre was quoted by Fortune on the FCC’s proposal to kill burner phones: “The FCC’s proposal would require every American to hand over a government ID just to get phone service, a mandate that would deny access to the most vulnerable, strip anonymity from those who need it most, and do little to stop the sophisticated scam operations it claims to target. Americans should not have to sacrifice their privacy because the Commission hasn’t exhausted more targeted alternatives to stop robocalls.”
| |
Partner SpotlightCDT is proud to partner with the Fourth Amendment Center of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. It represented Mr. Chatrie in the litigation that went up to the Supreme Court. The Fourth Amendment Center assists with cases involving law enforcement’s use of new technologies and tools that can infringe on constitutional rights. Check out their website to learn more.
| |
 | Andrew Crawford, wearing a black shirt with the ocean in the background.
|
| Staff Spotlight
How long have you been working in digital rights?
I’ve been working at the intersection of tech and the law for nearly 20 years. I’ve been lucky to work on these issues from several different perspectives in the executive branch, legislative branch, and now here at CDT. I love this work because it's dynamic and full of long-standing and novel challenges.
What do you want people to know about your area of focus in tech policy?
Health data is one of the most sensitive data sets out there and many types of data can reveal sensitive information about a person’s health and healthcare choices. What folks may not always recognize and appreciate is that the privacy and data governance regimes associated with their health data is not regulated by a single national privacy framework in the U.S. Instead, since 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) has governed the use and disclosure of certain medical information held by certain entities such as doctors and insurance companies. However, with the continued embrace of consumer-facing wearable devices, health and wellness apps, online health services, LLMs, and the Internet of Things, extraordinary amounts of health data are collected, retained, and shared by entities that are not bound by HIPAA’s privacy protections. We’re working hard to close these gaps and have more consistent privacy protections for all health data, regardless of who holds the data.
What is the most recent cultural activity you’ve been to?
A few months ago I was able to check out some of my favorite museums in NYC. Specifically, I was able to catch the fantastic Raphael: Sublime Poetry exhibition at the Met. I also got to visit the Frick Collection, which I hadn’t been to since their recent renovations.
Cats or dogs?
Dogs. We have a 5-year-old Havanese named Chase. He’s a fan of puzzle toys and loves to continually offer them for us to load with treats and then pass along for him to solve.
| |
|
|
|
|
