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.
Poll workers place a sign outside a polling station for the New Jersey Primary at a firehouse in Hoboken, N.J., June 4, 2024. (Gary Hershorn/ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — Amid President Donald Trump’s repeated unsubstantiated accusations of rigged voting and calls to nationalize elections, an updated version of the GOP’s signature piece of election reform — now called the SAVE America Act — is set to reach the House floor for a showdown vote later Wednesday.
The original, called the SAVE Act, was sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, passed out of the House in April, but has stalled in the Senate since — attracting intense pushback from Democrats, who say the bill would damage voting accessibility and discriminate against low-income voters who are unable to get government ID.
Trump and top Republicans have argued the revised bill is necessary to protect the country’s election process before the 2026 midterm elections in November.
“America’s Elections are Rigged, Stolen, and a Laughingstock all over the World,” Trump wrote on social media. “We are either going to fix them, or we won’t have a Country any longer. I am asking all Republicans to fight for the following: SAVE AMERICA ACT!”
There has been no credible evidence of widespread fraud or substantiated claims of U.S. elections being rigged.
What is the SAVE America Act?
Republican lawmakers tout the SAVE America Act as the next step in securing what they call “election integrity.” The bill would restrict mail-in ballots, require photo ID at polling places and mandate states obtain proof of citizenship before registering a person to vote in a federal election.
Citizenship documents include:
A valid United States passport
A Real ID
A birth certificate
United States military ID card, together with a record of service showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States
Federal, state or tribal government ID card showing the applicants place of birth
A driver’s license without a Real ID stamp would not be accepted as proof of citizenship.
This process would include mail voter registration applications, requiring people to provide documented proof to an appropriate election official before being approved.
The bill would also require states to scrub noncitizens from their current voter records and create programs to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens by using data from various state agencies, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.
On Election Day, voters would be expected to bring a valid photo ID which they would be required to present before getting access to the ballot box. If an ID does not have a photo, a voter would have to prove U.S. citizenship or provide the last four digits of the voter’s Social Security number.
Along with ID requirements, Trump has called for restrictions on voting by mail, disallowing mail-in voting except for instances of illness, disability, military or travel.
Several high-ranking Republican leaders allege the bill would stop instances of noncitizens voting in elections, an issue they argue has damaged the credibility of election results.
Noncitizens are already prohibited from voting in federal and state elections, though some cities allow noncitizens to vote on some local elections.
“A number of states deliberately don’t want to check whether or not somebody’s here legally when they register, and then they mandate in some states that they can’t show picture ID. That’s a recipe for voter fraud,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said during an interview on Fox News. “…one person, one vote only matters if you’re having these protections like the SAVE America Act.”
Experts have long insisted that noncitizen voting is a rare problem. Voter roll audits before the 2024 elections in Georgia found only 20 registered noncitizens out of 8.2 million registered voters statewide. Nine of those actually cast a ballot.
The president has suggested noncitizen voting has allowed Democrats to win elections when they otherwise shouldn’t have, including unfounded claims that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election.
“We need fair elections. We need elections where people aren’t able to cheat. And we’re going to do that, I’m going to do that, I’m going to get it done,” Trump said.
Why the controversy?
Implementing voter ID is not a novel idea in the United States. The National Conference of State Legislatures tracks 36 states that require voters to show some sort of identification at the polls.
Sentiment over voter ID is also recorded as mostly positive, with a Pew Research Center poll citing 83% of the 3,554 Americans surveyed as in favor of requiring all voters to show government issued photo IDs before voting.
In that same survey, 58% of respondents said they were in favor of maintaining mail-in voting.
Still, key Democrats on Capitol Hill have been strongly opposed to the bill, arguing it makes voting more difficult and less accessible.
“Our elections are key to our democracy. The SAVE Act would make it harder for registered, legal voters to vote,” California Democrat Rep. Mike Thomson said. “At a time when the president is talking about nationalizing elections, we must protect our democracy and every voter’s choice.”
Though the bill made it through the House with a 220-208 vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that the bill would be “dead on arrival” in the Senate.
“The Republicans’ SAVE Act reads more like a how-to guide for voter suppression. It goes against the very foundations of our democracy,” Schumer said. “Mark my words: This will not pass the Senate.”
Others, such as Democrat Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA), argue Republicans are deliberately timing the change in voter rules before consequential midterm elections.
“Republicans will stop at nothing to interfere with the 2026 midterms — including leveraging ICE to gain access to sensitive voter information or pass their anti-democratic SAVE Act,” Padilla said. “We’re not going to let them get away with their attempts to suppress the right to vote.”
In the Senate, the bill would need to garner support from some Democrats in order to overcome a 60-vote threshold to advance over an expected Democratic filibuster.
US President Donald Trump walks on the South Lawn of the White House after arriving on Marine One in Washington, DC, US, early on Monday, Feb. 9, 2026. (Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Later this month, President Donald Trump is hosting an annual meeting with governors at the White House, but he will not invite any Democrats, only Republicans, breaking a long-standing tradition.
The meeting, part of the National Governors Association winter gathering, will only include Republican governors, a spokesperson for the organization confirmed to ABC News.
“The bipartisan White House governors meeting is an important tradition, and we are disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year. To disinvite individual governors to the White House sessions undermines an important opportunity for federal-state collaboration,” Brandon Tatum, acting Executive Director and CEO of the National Governors Association, said in a statement to ABC News.
Trump is still planning to hold a separate, bipartisan dinner for governors and their spouses at the White House as part of the NGA activities. But Trump did not give invites to two Democrats: Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis.
It’s unclear why Trump did not invite Polis and Moore to the dinner. Moore also serves as the vice chair of the NGA.
“This is a disappointing decision for a traditionally bipartisan event between Governors and whomever occupies the White House,” Ally Sullivan, a spokesperson for Polis, said to ABC News in a statement. A source close to Polis said the governor was not given a reason for not being invited.
Over the past few months, Trump has put pressure on Polis to release Tina Peters from prison following her receiving a presidential pardon. Peters was convicted on state charges for a scheme to tamper with voting systems driven by false claims about the 2020 election. Trump’s pardon power does not extend to state crimes.
Moore was also not informed why he was not invited to the annual dinner and blasted Trump in a statement released on Sunday, appearing to suggest his race was a factor.
“My peers, both Democrats and Republicans, selected me to serve as the Vice Chair of the NGA, another reason why it’s hard not to see this decision as another example of blatant disrespect and a snub to the spirit of bipartisan federal-state partnership,” Moore said.
“As the nation’s only Black governor, I can’t ignore that being singled out for exclusion from this bipartisan tradition carries an added weight — whether that was the intent or not,” he continued.
ABC News has requested comment from the White House regarding Moore’s remarks.
Moore said to CNN on Sunday that he has received a commitment from the bipartisan National Governors Association that it will not recognize the dinner as an official NGA event.
In a statement to ABC News, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the president’s decision to exclude Democratic governors from the annual NGA meeting at the White House, adding that Trump did invite them to the dinner.
“These are White House events and the President can invite whomever he wants. With that being said, the White House has been coordinating meetings with the President, cabinet secretaries, and Democrat governors for more than a week,” Leavitt said in her statement. “Democrats were invited to the dinner at the White House. This is a non-story.”
Kentucky’s Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, in an appearance on ABC’s “The View” on Monday, slammed Trump’s decision to only invite Republicans to the annual meeting with governors at the White House and exclude Moore and Polis from the bipartisan dinner. Beshear also said he would not be attending the bipartisan dinner.
“No, I ain’t going,” Beshear said. “Wes is a friend of mine. Even if he wasn’t a friend of mine, this would be wrong — and Jared as well — but the other thing that’s going on is they didn’t invite any Democratic governor to the business section.”
Construction on the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve building in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, Jan. 12, 2026. (Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Prosecutors from the U.S. attorneys office in Washington were turned away Tuesday after they made an unannounced visit to the Federal Reserve, where they allegedly requested a tour of renovations that have attracted scrutiny from the Trump administration, sources familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News.
The unusual visit prompted immediate backlash from an attorney for Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who wrote a letter to D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office, citing the recent ruling from a federal judge that blocked subpoenas to the bank after determining DOJ’s criminal probe was driven by President Donald Trump’s political animus towards Powell.
Robert Hur, who formerly served as special counsel who investigated former President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents and now represents Powell, warned DOJ in the letter reviewed by ABC News that future efforts to initiate contact with Fed representatives should be negotiated through legal counsel.
“As you know, Chief Judge [James] Boasberg has concluded that your interest in the Federal Reserve’s renovation project was pretextual. Should you wish to challenge that finding, the courts provide an avenue for you; it is not appropriate for you to try to circumvent it,” Hur said. “I ask that you commit not to seek to communicate with my client outside the presence of counsel.”
According to Hur’s letter, attorneys from Pirro’s office, Carlton Davis and Steven Vandervelden, and a case agent showed up at the Fed’s headquarters, stating they wished to “check on progress” and that they asked for a “tour.”
A source said they were then told they could not access the site without preauthorized clearance from Fed management and were given the contact information for the Fed’s legal counsel, after which the three left the area.
“Any construction project that has cost overruns of almost 80% over the original construction budget deserves some serious review,” Pirro said in a statement on X after the prosecutors were turned away. “And these people are in charge of monetary policy in the United States?”
Pirro publicly vented her frustrations about Boasberg’s ruling that effectively blocked her office from investigating Powell, which she has vowed to continue appealing despite threats from Republican Sen. Thom Tillis to block any confirmation of Powell’s replacement until the criminal probe is resolved.
The probe centered on Powell’s testimony to Congress last year about cost overruns in a multibillion-dollar office renovation project.
Trump on Wednesday again threatened to fire Powell if he does not step down when his term as chair ends May 15.
“I’ll have to fire him, OK, if he’s not leaving on time — I’ve held back firing him. I’ve wanted to fire him, but I hate to be controversial, you know, I want to be uncontroversial,” Trump said in an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo.
Legal experts have questioned if Trump has the authority to fire Powell. His attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook last year is currently awaiting a decision at the Supreme Court.
The confrontational visit also comes as Pirro’s name has repeatedly been floated as a potential permanent replacement for Pam Bondi as the next attorney general.
Powell rebuked the investigation in a video message in January as a politically motivated effort to influence the Fed’s interest rate policy.
Pirro, at a press conference in March, denied that politics played any role in her probe of Powell and the focus was whether public money has been wasted as a result of the Fed’s renovations, and potential false statements to Congress by Powell about the operations.
