Supreme Court weighs ‘geofence warrants’ for cellphone data
The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, April 20, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — For generations, cops have obtained warrants to lawfully seek information from a specific suspect in a crime.
The Supreme Court on Monday is considering whether investigators can also use so-called “geofence warrants” to do the reverse — scanning cell phone data of thousands of innocent individuals in hopes of finding a suspect to apprehend.
The landmark case is the first time the justices will consider whether the controversial practice of digital dragnets, which have grown in popularity among law enforcement with advances in technology, violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
Critics say the warrants intrude on Americans’ reasonable expectation of privacy by compelling service providers to turn over broad swaths of user location history and time stamps within a specified area over a specified timeframe.
Advocates for geofence warrants call them a critical tool that will help police more quickly solve crimes, in turn making communities safer. They also emphasize that most cellphone users knowingly transmit location data to third-party tech companies already.
The petitioner in the case, Okello Chatrie, was indicted on charges related to an armed robbery of a Virginia credit union in 2019 and wants key cellphone location evidence against him thrown out.
Authorities relied heavily on data obtained from Google under a geofence warrant that placed Chatrie’s cellphone within 150 meters of the bank during the crime.
The Trump administration, which is defending the law enforcement tool and Chatrie’s prosecution, argues that by sharing location information with apps and service providers like Google, a person forfeits any expectation of privacy.
A decision in the case — Chatrie v U.S. — is expected by the end of June.
Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, speaks during an interview at DNC headquarters in Washington on Sunday, November 2, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Members of the Democratic National Committee voted down a symbolic resolution aimed at curbing the “growing influence” of “dark money” corporate groups in Democratic primaries that specifically called out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Committee members gathered on Thursday in New Orleans, where a majority of members objected to the resolution for singling out AIPAC and argued it was redundant, since they had already approved a broader measure earlier in the meeting condemning the influence of dark money in the midterms without naming specific groups.
Allison Minnerly, who sponsored the resolution, responded to the criticism that her resolution was singling out AIPAC, the pro-Israel political lobbying group.
“Members like to say that we don’t want to single out AIPAC, but AIPAC will entirely single out them and all of our different progressive leaders when it comes to primary elections,” said Minnerly.
AIPAC’s influence has become a flashpoint inside the Democratic Party, as leaders struggle to respond to rapidly shifting views about Israel among progressives, especially in the wake of the war in Gaza and amid the current U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
DNC Chair Ken Martin posted on X, stating, “We had various resolutions that focused on different industries and groups, and instead of going one-by-one, we passed a blanket repudiation.”
The panel’s rejection of the AIPAC resolution means it will not go before the full body for a final vote on Friday.
“The DNC made clear today that all Democrats, including millions who are AIPAC members, have the right to participate fully in the Democratic process, and we plan to do just that,” AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa told ABC News.
Minnerly’s resolution stated that “the use of massive outside spending to support or oppose candidates based on their positions regarding international conflicts or foreign governments raises concerns about undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking, potentially constraining elected officials’ ability to represent the views of their constituents,” and referenced the millions of dollars spent by AIPAC in the recent Illinois Democratic primaries.
Andrew Lachman, a DNC member and the former president of California Jewish Democrats, said that it was “troubling” that the resolution was focused on calling out AIPAC.
“There are a lot of super PACs, a lot of right-wing organizations out there. There are a lot of left-wing ones out there that take advantage of the super PAC status as well. We need to address that,” Lachman said. “None of those were mentioned … I think respectfully, if it’s about our campaign finance system, let’s take it on. But when you mention only one group, it comes across like you’re not actually interested in the campaign finance issue and transparency issue. It’s about something else.”
In a statement to ABC News, Brian Romick, the president and CEO of the Democratic Majority for Israel said, “We’re pleased that the DNC Resolutions Committee rejected a set of divisive, anti-Israel resolutions. These measures would be a gift to Republicans, would further fracture our party, and do nothing to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace.”
“They should have voted for the AIPAC resolution given the pernicious influence they had in Illinois,” progressive Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told ABC News.
In a video posted on X, Khanna said, “anyone who wants to lead the party must condemn and reject AIPAC money.
2 other measures deferred
During the resolutions committee hearing, members also deferred action on two broad resolutions addressing Middle East conflicts, one of which would recognize Palestinian statehood and another that urged the party to support conditioning military aid to Israel. Instead, the proposals were sent to the party’s newly formed Middle East working group.
The question of how productive this group has been was a topic of conversation from DNC members and was mentioned during the resolutions committee hearing.
“We recommend this going back to the task force, but then we can put som. … expectations that we hear back,” said Ron Harris, co-chair of the DNC’s resolution committee, referring to the measure on Palestinian statehood.
Minnerly told ABC News she sponsored a measure to oppose the war in Gaza last August, but the resolution was defeated. In the wake of that, DNC Chair Ken Martin established a Middle East working group.
“I’m not surprised that members of the resolutions committee are eager for an update … Since that meeting [in August], there has not been consistent progress or even forward motion, and the characterizations of the task force were accurate,” said Minnerly, who is a member of the DNC’s Middle East working group.
In recent weeks, progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Khanna have said they do not support any U.S. military aid to Israel, including defensive systems like the Iron Dome.
When asked if opposing funding for Israel’s defensive systems is a stance more of the Democratic Party should represent, Minnerly told ABC News last week in advance of Thursday’s meeting, “The further escalation has gone, the longer the war has been, we have seen the Democratic Party really migrate towards this ideal of de-escalation and not funding conflict.”
Lachman, however, also speaking in advance of Thursday’s meeting, said that he just sees this change in tune from some Democrats as “pressure from certain segments within the [Democratic Socialists of America]” and “some people who may be future candidates, particularly for president, are just trying to pander to them.”
He added, “I don’t think this is a mainstream view within the party, by any stretch of the imagination.”
U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) (R) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) hold a press conference on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding at the U.S. Capitol on February 04, 2026 in Washington, DC. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — With just a few days until a Friday deadline to fund the Department of Homeland Security, Republican and Democratic lawmakers still appear to be at an impasse on how to move forward with Democrats’ demands for new restrictions on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats delivered proposed legislative text that reflects their 10-item list of demands to Republican leadership over the weekend. The GOP presented a counterproposal, which Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said they rejected Monday night.
Details of the GOP counteroffer have not been made public, but according to Democrats, it didn’t include “details” or “legislative text.”
“The initial GOP response is both incomplete and insufficient in terms of addressing the concerns Americans have about ICE’s lawless conduct. Democrats await additional detail and text,” Schumer and Jeffries said in the statement.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune would not provide details on the GOP offer when asked by reporters on Tuesday.
“I think both sides are right now trying — other than it sounds like the Democrats up here are talking about it — are trying to keep the conversations moving forward and not litigating that in public,” Thune said.
The negotiations are coming as another partial government shutdown looms. If a DHS funding solution is not reached and passed in both chambers by the end of the day Friday, DHS would then shut down.
The TSA, Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Secret Service, CISA and FEMA would be impacted even though lawmakers’ focus is on Immigration and Customs Enforcement reform. ICE operations would not be impacted after it received $75 billion in separate funding from the already-passed “Big Beautiful Bill.”
In a letter last week to Republican leaders, Jeffries and Schumer laid out 10 key demands from Democrats on DHS funding, including calling for judicial warrants before agents can enter private property, a ban on ICE agents wearing face masks, requiring the use of body cameras and new laws for use-of-force standards.
Schumer has called Democrats’ demands “exceedingly reasonable.”
“We are asking ICE to do nothing more than follow the standards that the vast majority of law enforcement agencies already follow. Why should ICE be different, especially when they have such a record of brutality?” Schumer said.
The funding fight over DHS erupted in the aftermath of the death of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, who was killed in a shooting involving federal law enforcement in Minneapolis on Jan. 24. Renee Good, a mother of three, was fatally shot by ICE agents in Minneapolis on Jan. 7.
Earlier Monday, Thune said on the Senate floor that Democrats engaged in “meaningful talks” with the White House on a path forward for funding DHS over the weekend.
“Democrats have made their demands known in detail. Some of them are positive starting points for further discussions; others are non-staters and unnecessarily tie the hands of law enforcement,” Thune said on the Senate floor.
But Thune said Republicans, in conjunction with the White House, will seek demands of their own.
“I expect that the Trump administration, with the full backing of congressional Republicans, will continue to resist any effort to make it harder for law enforcement to detain and deport dangerous illegal aliens, which is what many of the Democrats demands would do, and I expect that the administration — again with the backing of Republicans here in Congress — will insist on reforms of its own,” Thune said.
As negotiations continue behind the scenes, Thune said on Monday that lawmakers will likely need more time to complete their work. He urged Democrats to support a stopgap funding proposal to keep the lights on at DHS while they continue discussions on ICE reform.
“We are just a few days away from the deadline that Democrats chose,” Thune said. “And it’s very possible we won’t have our work finished by then. If Democrats are serious about finding a solution there, they may need to find more time to bring these efforts to a productive conclusion.”
U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly speaks on the failed grand jury indictment against him during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on February 11, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In a biting opinion that chastised Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Republican-appointed judge on Thursday blocked the Defense Department from trying to punish Sen. Mark Kelly over a video he and other Democrats made urging service members not to follow illegal orders, accusing Hegseth of “trampling” on the Arizona senator’s First Amendment rights and suggesting Hegseth should be more “grateful” for the wisdom of retired service members.
“This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” Washington D.C. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon wrote in his opinion.
Leon sharply questioned Trump administration lawyers on whether there was legal precedent for the Defense Department’s attempt to demote and reduce retirement benefits for Kelly, who has been sharply critical of the White House.
“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote. “If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues.”
The Justice Department could appeal the decision, although it’s not clear if it would. The Pentagon and Hegseth on Thursday did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case has drawn considerable attention as a major test of the First Amendment rights of military veterans and the government’s separation of powers. Kelly was suing the Pentagon for threatening to demote him in rank and reduce his military retirement benefits because of a video he made with other Democrats that urged troops not to comply with illegal orders, which they did not specify.
Hegseth accused Kelly of violating a federal law that prohibits undermining good order and discipline within the military and accused him of hiding behind his position as a U.S. senator to do so.
In a video posted online to social media on Thursday, Kelly said he is grateful for the judge’s opinion.
“I appreciate the judge’s careful consideration of this case and the clarity of his ruling, but I also know that this might not be over yet, because this president and this administration do not know how to admit when they’re wrong,” he said.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
