8-minute read | 1,750 words
What to know this week
Supreme Court says Constitution protects location history.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the police need to obtain a warrant to access location data.
House passes KIDS Act.
The House of Representatives has passed the KIDS Act despite significant privacy concerns.
This week's full stories
The Supreme Court rules that location history is protected by the Constitution.
THE NEWS
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that will require law enforcement to obtain warrants to access location data, even if that data was shared with a technology company.
In the 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court Justices ruled in Chatrie v. United States that the Fourth Amendment protects location data that people hand over to technology companies.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority:
“An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information, even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company.”
The three Justices who dissented included Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Alito criticized the decision for failing to address the legality of the warrant in this specific case. Justice Alito wrote:
“Indeed, by refusing to review the one question that could have at least theoretically given Chatrie some hope of relief, the Court carefully set the stage for its planned performance: striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age. I cannot support this irresponsible escapade.”
The case now returns to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether the warrant in this specific case was properly filed.
THE KNOWLEDGE
For greater context, this case ties to a criminal investigation from 2019. In the incident, police arrested Okello Chatrie after using a geofence warrant to locate all devices near the scene of a bank robbery. Notably, geofence warrants have been heavily criticized as they are very broad.
When using these warrants, police are able to search wide areas around where a crime took place requesting that technology companies provide information on anyone in the area. From there police look to narrow down suspects based on search queries, device behavior, or other similar indicators.
While this ruling did not strike down these warrants as unconstitutional, they do represent a major step forward for privacy advocates for scaling back these powers. Andrew Crocker from the Electronic Frontier Foundation commented on the development, stating:
“Although the Court stopped short of striking down these warrants as inherently unconstitutional, we look forward to pressing lower courts to eliminate these warrants once and for all.”
Outside of the legality of these warrants, technology companies have also begun to change their own internal practices in response to law enforcement location data efforts. For example, in 2023, Google announced that it would change how it collects and stores location history data. With that change, Google would no longer store its data directly on people’s devices rather than on company servers, and now no longer be compelled to respond to location history requests as it no longer holds the information.
THE IMPACT
This decision represents another significant shift in how the Supreme Court views digital privacy. For decades, courts generally held that individuals surrendered many privacy protections once they voluntarily shared information with a third party, such as a bank, telephone provider, or major technology company. As devices and applications have increasingly collected more data on their users, the Court has increasingly recognized that traditional doctrines may no longer adequately protect constitutional rights.
For law enforcement agencies, the ruling will likely make digital investigations more time-consuming and procedurally demanding. Investigators seeking relevant location data will now need to satisfy a probable cause requirement before accessing data held by a technology company. While the Supreme Court did not overturn geofence warrants altogether, lower courts will likely face renewed challenges over how these warrants can be written and utilized.
More broadly, this ruling is likely to influence future legal battles involving other forms of digital data and data collection efforts, especially as AI changes how data is utilized. As consumers generate more data, courts will likely continue to face challenges regarding privacy protections.
The KIDS Act clears the House of Representatives.
THE NEWS
On Monday, the House of Representatives passed a major legislative package focused on children’s online safety. The bill passed in a 267-117 vote with 47 members not voting.
The legislative package combines provisions from more than a dozen digital safety bills into a single legislative framework. These measures focus on creating age verification systems, AI chatbots, data protections, and raising awareness about drug sales that take place on social media.
A key difference between this version and previous iterations revolves around the Kids’ Online Safety Act’s (KOSA) duty of care provision. For context, this provision was one of the most debated portions of KOSA, which would have legally required platforms to “exercise reasonable care” to prevent harms to minors. These harms included risks associated with eating disorders, suicide, substance abuse, and sexual exploitation.
Notably, this has been the first time the House has passed a version of a children's online safety act. The bill now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to face significant scrutiny after House lawmakers altered several provisions contained in previous Senate-passed online safety legislation.
THE KNOWLEDGE
Given that the KIDS Act no longer contains KOSA’s duty of care provision, the bill will require substantial negotiation within the Senate to find a compromise. Senator Richard Blumenthal, one of the authors of KOSA, noted that without that provision, the House’s bill was “dead in the Senate.” However, outside of the duty of care provision, the bill also includes a key federal provision that would preempt state online safety laws. The issue has become increasingly important as states have enacted or proposed their own social media age restrictions, parental consent requirements, and online safety regulations amid years of congressional gridlock.
While implementing a federal framework for online safety would help improve enforcement and establish a single regulatory framework, there are notable concerns. Critics emphasized that this preemption would make it more difficult for consumers to sue social media companies for specific design features. For example, Senator Maria Cantwell noted that if this bill were passed it would have prevented some of California’s major lawsuits against social media companies.
Supporters of preemption pushed back. House Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone commented:
“The preemption language in the KIDS Act is written with the explicit intent of ensuring that states have the authority to pass and enforce stronger state laws, including those with a duty of care.”
Given these impasses, it is unclear if the House’s version of an online safety bill will be able to survive the Senate or if a compromise will be able to be reached.
THE IMPACT
With KOSA, and now the KIDS Act, the legislative branch is attempting once again to pass a wide-sweeping kids online safety bill. However, as with previous attempts, disagreements over the infamous “duty of care” provision will likely be a key topic of debate as the Senate has consistently attempted to incorporate it into legislation packages and the House has always pushed back against it.
Beyond the immediate debate over children’s online safety, the legislation could become a defining test of how Congress approaches technology regulation more broadly. The disagreement surrounding the duty of care provision reflects a larger divide over whether online platforms should bear legal responsibility for harms experienced by users or whether policymakers should focus on transparency, parental controls, and product design requirements.
At the same time, the debate over federal preemption could have long-term consequences for state governments. Over the past several years, states have emerged as some of the most proactive regulators of social media platforms. If lawmakers ultimately adopt a federal framework with broad preemption, it could significantly limit states’ authority to regulate online safety independently.
This Week's Caveat Podcast: Drawing a digital line for geofencing.
Dave Bittner and Ben Yelin sit down to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision regarding the legality of geofence warrants and accessing user location data. Throughout the conversation, Dave and Ben discuss the ruling itself, the various opinions of the Justices, and how this ruling will impact privacy and future law enforcement operations.
OTHER NOTEWORTHY STORIES
Australia toughens kids’ social media ban.
What: Australia announced new penalties for social media companies not enforcing its social media ban.
Why: On Saturday, the Australian government announced that it will double the current penalties it can impose on social media firms that are failing to comply with the nation’s social media ban.
Additionally, the government announced that it would strengthen its information-gathering powers for its internet regulators. With these new powers, the government aims to further compel social media companies to provide more evidence on what efforts they have undertaken to enforce the social media ban.
Under these new changes, the new maximum penalty jumps to $68 million for systematic failures to uphold the bans.
JUNE 27, 2026 | Source: Reuters
Anthropic restores Mythos 5 access.
What: Anthropic announced that the US government has allowed the company to release Claude Mythos 5 to select US organizations.
Why: On Friday, Anthropic announced that the US government has partially rolled back its order to block the release of the company’s powerful AI models. With this partial rollback, Anthropic is now allowed to release its Mythos 5 model to select “trusted” companies.
In a June 26 letter, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik emphasized that Anthropic has the "appropriate safeguards are in place to permit certain trusted partners to access the Claude Mythos 5 model.”
JUNE 29, 2026 | Source: GovCon Wire
US bans more Chinese technology products.
What: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced new bans on technology equipment from a group of Chinese manufacturers.
Why: On Friday, the FCC announced that it would expand upon its previous bans from 2022, citing national security concerns. The ban now includes old models alongside the current models banned from 2022 and onward. Specifically, the ban is focused on equipment used for “public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure, and other national security purposes.”
The expanded ban is set to take effect in early July.
With the expanded ban, the FCC stated:
This action “is necessary to protect national security by mitigating risks to the US communications sector.”
Newly banned equipment already owned can continue to be used.
JUNE 26, 2026 | Source: Reuters