Civil and Human Rights

Justices Wary Of Unfettered Police Intrusion Into Smartphone Privacy

Washington, DC – After this morning’s oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court over the rights of people to keep the contents of their cell and smartphones private from police intrusion without a warrant, CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra – who was in the Court for today’s proceedings – issued the following reaction:

 

“Most of the Justices recognized that the vast troves of deeply personal information that Americans carry around on their cell phones raise new concerns regarding police searches incident to arrest. As Justice Kagan in particular noted, such a vast intrusion of privacy could be triggered by an arrest for as minor an infraction as failing to buckle your seatbelt. Justices across the ideological spectrum seemed to have trouble with the nature of the police searches in these cases, which run directly counter to the vision of privacy that America’s founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.”

 

#

 

Resources:

 

CAC merits stage “friend of the court” brief in Riley v. California and U.S. v. Wurie: http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/CAC_Riley_Wurie_Merits_Amicus_Brief.pdf

 

“What Scalia knows about illegal searches,” Brianne Gorod, April 29, 2014: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/opinion/gorod-cell-phone-scalia-court/ 

 

“The Supreme Court Cases Everyone With a Cell Phone Should Be Watching,” Brianne Gorod, April 11, 2014: http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/2629/supreme-court-cases-everyone-cell-phone-should-be-watching 

 

##

 

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

 

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board

In Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can ignore critical civil service laws when removing Immigration Judges.
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Access to Justice
----- Supreme Court -----

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 16, 2026

CAC Release: Todd Blanche’s Record Disqualifies Him From Serving as America’s Lawyer

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to this week’s confirmation hearings on Todd Blanche’s nomination to...
By: Praveen Fernandes