![ACLU](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012694/origin.png)
Tech Firms Urge Supreme Court to Adapt Privacy Protections for 'Realities of the Digital Era' in Cell Phone Tracking Case
Wide Range of Organizations File Briefs Supporting ACLU in Privacy Rights Case
Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Verizon, and other technology companies filed a brief with the Supreme Court late last night declaring that when it comes to the government's tracking of people's cell phone locations, "Rigid analog-era rules should yield to consideration of reasonable expectations of privacy in the digital age."
The friend-of-the-court brief was one of many submitted Monday in the case, Carpenter v. United States, in which the American Civil Liberties Union represents a man who had months' worth of cell phone location information handed over to police without a warrant. The Supreme Court is considering whether a warrant should be required to access location data.
The technology companies, which also included Microsoft, Airbnb, Cisco Systems, Dropbox, Evernote, Mozilla, Nest Labs, Oath, and Snap, said that their businesses depend on customers relying on them to keep sensitive information private. Writing that "Fourth Amendment doctrine must adapt to the changing realities of the digital era," the companies argued that it is crucial that the Constitution be interpreted to provide strong protection to the many forms of private data created by using internet-connected digital technologies.
In 2011, without getting a probable cause warrant, the government obtained from cell service companies months' worth of phone location records for suspects in a robbery investigation in Detroit. For one suspect, Timothy Carpenter, the records covered 127 days and revealed 12,898 separate points of location data -- an average of over 100 location points per day. Police seek these kinds of cell phone location records from phone companies tens of thousands of times each year.
After Carpenter was convicted at trial, based in part on the cell phone location evidence, he appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled 2-1 that no warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment.
In its opening brief in the case filed last week, the ACLU argued that because cell phone location records give the government an unprecedented power to learn private details about people's lives -- such as personal relationships, visits to the doctor, or religious practices -- the court must make clear that they are covered by the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
A number of the other friend-of-the-court briefs were filed Monday. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 19 other media organizations, filing in support of the ACLU's client, warned of the chilling effect on First Amendment freedoms that can result from easy law enforcement access to the location information of reporters and their sources. The Center for Competitive Politics, Center for Media Justice, Color of Change, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, and Tea Party Patriots discussed the implications of warrantless government access to cell phone location information for people exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and association.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center and 36 technical experts and legal scholars explained that revolutionary changes in technology in recent decades mean that Supreme Court cases from the 1970s do not govern the outcome of this digital-age case.
The Knight First Amendment Institute wrote on behalf of 19 technology experts to highlight the increasing precision of cell phone location data and the highly sensitive information about people's lives that the data can reveal.
Briefs were also filed by the Cato Institute, Gun Owners Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Reason Foundation, Institute for Justice, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center, Data & Society Research Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Constitution Project, Brennan Center for Justice, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Federal Defenders, Center for Democracy & Technology, Committee for Justice, Rutherford Institute, Restore the Fourth, United States Justice Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Heller Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center, as well as law professors, legal scholars, technologists, and others.
"The number and variety of organizations and experts filing represent the widespread recognition that your cell phone's location history is your own business, and the government needs to have a good reason to get its hands on it," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler. "In particular, the tech firms are sending a very clear message that the law needs to catch up with the technology that is now an integral part of our everyday lives."
The case will be argued in the fall. Carpenter is represented at the Supreme Court by attorneys for the ACLU and ACLU of Michigan; defense attorney Harold Gurewitz of Gurewitz & Raben, PLC; and Jeffrey Fisher, co-director of the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.
All briefs and case information are here:|
https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-carpenter-governments-warrantless-collection-detroit-suspects-historical-cell
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666As Other Governors Boost Biden, Maura Healey Says 'Listen to the American People'
"Whatever President Biden decides, I am committed to doing everything in my power to defeat Donald Trump," the Massachusetts Democrat said.
While other Democratic governors across the United States reiterate their support for President Joe Biden amid calls for him to be replaced as the party's nominee for the November election, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey on Friday suggested that he should consider some of the criticism.
"President Biden saved our democracy in 2020 and has done an outstanding job over the last four years," Healey said in a statement, recalling his previous win over former President Donald Trump, who is now the presumptive Republican nominee.
"I am deeply grateful for his leadership. And I know he agrees this is the most important election of our lifetimes," Healey continued. "The best way forward right now is a decision for the president to make. Over the coming days, I urge him to listen to the American people and carefully evaluate whether he remains our best hope to defeat Donald Trump. Whatever President Biden decides, I am committed to doing everything in my power to defeat Donald Trump."
Despite mounting calls for Biden to step aside—and "pass the torch" to Vice President Kamala Harris or another top Democrat—since his poor performance in a CNN-hosted debate against Trump last week, the president has remained defiant, declaring at a campaign event in Wisconsin on Friday that "I am running and going to win again."
"I am running and going to win again."
President Joe Biden addressed the pressure to end his campaign during a rally in Wisconsin. pic.twitter.com/N1y6Pidkqp
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) July 5, 2024
After a Wednesday gathering with Democratic governors—including Healey—at the White House, the Biden-Harris reelection campaign sent out an email that said, "Coming out of the meeting, the message was clear: Joe Biden has governors' backs, and they are proud to have his."
The email highlighted recent supportive statements from Govs. John Carney of Delaware, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Josh Green of Hawaii, Kathy Hochul of New York, Dan McKee of Rhode Island, Wes Moore of Maryland, Phil Murphy of New Jersey, Gavin Newsom of California, Tim Walz of Minnesota, and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.
The president told governors at the meeting that "he needs to get more sleep and work fewer hours, including curtailing events after 8:00 pm," The New York Timesreported. "Biden also told the governors that he had been examined by his physician at some point in the days after the debate because of the cold he was suffering from and that he was fine."
On Capitol Hill, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) "is attempting to assemble a group of Democratic senators to ask President Biden to exit the presidential race," The Washington Postreported Friday. The newspaper noted that "Warner spokeswoman Rachel Cohen would neither confirm nor deny that the senator thinks Biden needs to drop out of the race."
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas became the first Democrat in Congress to call on Biden to withdraw from the race on Tuesday. The following day, Congressman Raúl Grijalva of Arizona became the second.
Biden is also facing pressure to drop out from some major donors. In a lengthy statement to CNBC on Thursday, Abigail Disney said: "I intend to stop any contributions to the party unless and until they replace Biden at the top of the ticket. This is realism, not disrespect. Biden is a good man and has served his country admirably, but the stakes are far too high."
Democrats and other critics urging Biden to reconsider his run have pointed to growing concerns about a second Trump term considering a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling giving the president king-like powers, the Republican's desire to be a dictator on "day one," and fears that Trump will work to impose the far-right's Project 2025 policy agenda.
In an effort to reassure voters, Biden's team has set up a televised interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, which is set to air Friday at 8:00 pm ET. Viewers will also be able to watch the interview on the ABC application for smartphones or tablets, or online at ABC.com.
'Bullsh*t': Trump Slammed for Trying to Distance Himself From Project 2025
"Trump is now desperately trying to run from his deep ties to Project 2025... MAGA extremists' radical wish list for a second Trump term," President Joe Biden's campaign said.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday attempted to distance himself from a conservative coalition's agenda for a far-right takeover of the federal government, prompting derision from observers who underscored close ties between the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee and the blueprint's authors.
Trump took to his Truth social media platform to claim the knows "nothing about Project 2025," a sweeping initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation to boost the power of the presidency and purge career federal civil servants, who would be replaced with Trump loyalists.
"I have no idea who is behind it," Trump added, a claim that numerous observers quickly countered.
In an email entitled, "Donald Trump & Project 2025: One and the Same," Democratic President Joe Biden's reelection campaign said that "Trump is now desperately trying to run from his deep ties to Project 2025—the Heritage Foundation's 900-page deeply unpopular manifesto drafted by former Trump officials that offers Americans a preview of MAGA extremists' radical wish list for a second Trump term."
"Project 2025 is the extreme policy and personnel playbook for Trump's second term that should scare the hell out of the American people," Biden campaign spokesperson Ammar Moussa said in a statement. "Project 2025 staff and leadership routinely tout their connections to Trump's team, and are the same people leading the [Republican National Committee policy platform, Trump's debate prep, campaign, and inner circle."
"Trump's Supreme Court and Project 2025 have designed the playbook for Trump to achieve his dream of being a dictator on day one, with unchecked, imperial power," Moussa added. "Allowing a self-absorbed convicted felon that kind of power would be devastating for our democracy and middle-class families. This November, voters must stop Trump from turning the Oval Office into his throne room."
As CNNdetailed Friday:
Paul Dans, the head of Project 2025, was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration, and the group's roadmap for the next administration includes contributions from others who have worked for the former president, including his former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, former acting Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli, and former deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn. John McEntee, Trump's former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office and one of his closest aides while in office, is also a senior adviser for the project.
Mother Jones Washington, D.C. bureau chief David Corn said: "This is B.S. Christian nationalist Russell Vought, who is one of the Trump allies in charge of the GOP platform effort, is a coordinator of Project 2025. Trump is gaslighting once again."
Others noted that Trump's own Make America Great Again, Inc. super PAC is running ads highlighting Project 2025.
Critics have called Project 2025 a "blueprint for autocracy"—an assessment bolstered by last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling bestowing the president with what experts described as king-like powers, which Trump's advisers have reportedly vowed to exploit if he wins November's election.
The Associated Pressreported last month that a right-wing group allied with the presumptive GOP nominee was drafting a list of federal employees who are disloyal or insufficiently dutiful to Trump, an undertaking compared with the McCarthyite anti-communist crusade during the second Red Scare in the 1950s.
Kevin Roberts, who heads the Heritage Foundation, raised eyebrows earlier this week after he said that the coming right-wing "revolution" will "remain bloodless if the left allows it to be," which some observers took as a thinly veiled threat of violence.
In his Friday Truth post, Trump said that he disagrees with some of Project 2025's agenda and that "some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."
"Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them," he reiterated.
Journalist Mehdi Hasan responded to Trump's claim in a social media post saying, "What's revealing about Donald Trump loudly disavowing Project 2025 and falsely denying any knowledge of it is that clearly he knows how damaging it can be to his election bid."
"So why on earth did neither Biden nor the CNN moderators bring it up at the debate last week?" he asked.
Kansas Supreme Court Affirms Abortion Rights, Strikes Down Restrictions
"This is an immense victory for the health, safety, and dignity of people in Kansas and the entire Midwestern region, where millions have been cut off from abortion access," said one advocate.
Reproductive rights defenders on Friday cheered a pair of Kansas Supreme Court decisions reaffirming the right to abortion and striking down various restrictions—rulings expected to impact people beyond the Midwestern state, given how many patients must now travel for care.
"The state devoted much of its brief to inviting us to reverse our earlier ruling in this case that the Kansas Constitution protects a right to abortion. We decline the invitation," Justice Eric Rosen wrote in the decision against Senate Bill 95, which outlawed a common abortion procedure for second-trimester pregnancies called dilation and evacuation (D&E).
Rosen was referring to the court's 2019 ruling that "Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights affords protection of the right of personal autonomy," which "allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy."
The justice wrote Friday that "S.B. 95 does not further patient safety, it compromises patient safety," noting that "as the district court found and the state did not contest, S.B. 95 eliminates a safe and common medical procedure and leaves patients subject to procedures that are rarely used, are untested, and are sometimes more dangerous or impossible."
The court's other new ruling was about what critics call targeted restrictions on abortion providers (TRAP) policies. Both decisions were 5-1—with Justice Stegall Caleb dissenting and Justice K.J. Wall not participating—and followed Kansas voters rejecting a proposed anti-choice amendment to the state constitution in August 2022.
"Now the Kansas Supreme Court has decisively reaffirmed that the state constitution protects abortion as a fundamental right."
"Kansas voters made it loud and clear in 2022: The right to abortion must be protected. Now the Kansas Supreme Court has decisively reaffirmed that the state constitution protects abortion as a fundamental right," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which was involved with both cases.
"This is an immense victory for the health, safety, and dignity of people in Kansas and the entire Midwestern region, where millions have been cut off from abortion access," Northup added. "We will continue our fight to ensure Kansans can access the essential healthcare they need in their home state."
The anti-choice ballot measure's failure two years ago came shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority reversedRoe v. Wade with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization—which bolstered GOP efforts to further restrict reproductive rights at the state level, forcing patients to more frequently travel for abortion care.
Kansas allows abortion care up until 22 weeks of pregnancy and has seen an influx of healthcare refugees from states that have imposed bans. The Guttmacher Institute said last month that "in Kansas, clinic numbers increased by 50% (from four to six) between 2020 and 2023, and the number of abortions rose by 152% (an increase of 12,440)."
Despite the fresh wins in court, the broader battle for reproductive freedom continues in Kansas. As KMUWreported Friday:
Several new abortion laws took effect in Kansas earlier this week, but one of them—a law requiring doctors to ask patients getting abortions their reason for doing so—is being challenged in court. A Johnson County judge said Monday that doctors could add the law to a larger lawsuit they brought against a handful of older state abortion restrictions, including a 24-hour waiting period. The judge agreed to temporarily block the older laws while the case proceeds.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment told providers it will "not, for now" enforce the abortion reasons law, providers said Monday. The health department has not responded to requests seeking to confirm that.
The Center for Reproductive Rights noted Friday that it "is currently representing abortion providers in another ongoing challenge to several onerous restrictions including a law forcing providers to falsely tell their patients that a medication abortion can be 'reversed,' an unproven claim not based on medicine or science."