SCOTUS hears a novel Fourth Amendment challenge.

Summary

---

Tangle Podcast Summary

Episode: SCOTUS hears a novel Fourth Amendment challenge
Date: April 29, 2026
Host: Isaac Saul (with Audrey Moorhead)
Theme: The Supreme Court’s consideration of geofence warrants and their constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the Supreme Court case Chatri v. United States, which challenges the use of geofence warrants—a novel digital investigative tool—under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. Host Isaac Saul and co-host Audrey Moorhead examine the background and stakes of the case, highlight key moments from oral arguments, and present reactions from across the political spectrum, as well as the host’s own nuanced analysis.

---

Key Issues & Case Background

What’s a Geofence Warrant?

• A court order compelling technology companies (mainly Google) to reveal which devices were present in a given area (the “geofence”) over a specific period, typically to pinpoint suspects near a crime scene using historical cell phone location data.

The Case: Chatri v. United States

• Akello Chatri was convicted of armed bank robbery in Virginia after police, unable to immediately identify the perpetrator, sought and used a geofence warrant to access Google’s location data for devices near the bank during the crime.
• Chatri argued the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, as it allowed for indiscriminate search of many people’s private information without cause.
• The government countered that users who opt-in to sharing their location data with Google have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding that data.

Oral Arguments at SCOTUS

• Justices appeared divided over whether geofence warrants are fundamentally different from older investigative methods (like canvassing witnesses or reviewing surveillance).
• Discussion centered on probable cause, reasonable expectation of privacy, and the difference between public/personal data.

---

Major Discussion Points & Insights

Initial Takeaways ([02:12]-[09:00])

• Host Isaac Saul introduces the episode, noting the unprecedented nature of the case:

  "It's related to search and seizures and the Fourth Amendment. We're going to talk about exactly what happened, share some views from the left and the right..." [02:12]

• Audrey Moorhead details current events and headlines, then summarizes the facts of Chatri v. United States ([05:48]):
  • The case is “the first time the Supreme Court has considered the use of geofencing warrants, which enable the police to cast wide digital dragnets to investigate a suspected crime.” [06:03]

Breakdown of Oral Arguments ([06:03]-[09:00])

• Republican-appointed justices (e.g., Justice Alito) seemed open to the argument that users gave up privacy by opting in.
• Democratic appointees, like Justice Sotomayor, appeared more sympathetic to privacy arguments—Sotomayor compared collecting cell phone data to an illegal police search.
• Justice Barrett examined differences in expectation of privacy in public versus private spaces.
• Justice Kagan probed whether companies’ data practices influence Fourth Amendment analysis.

Key Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Chief Justice Roberts’ analogy:

  "If you don't want the government to have your location history, you just flip that off. He compared this to not wanting someone to peer into your window and how you can close your window or the shades." [Isaac Saul’s summary, 18:40]

• Justice Gorsuch’s pointed question:

  "Does this logic extend to your Gmail, your Google Photos, your Google Calendar, your Google Docs? Is all of that suddenly accessible without a specific warrant? Because consented by using Google services?"
  (Isaac Saul, recounting oral argument, [19:30])

• Courtroom moment:
  As Feigen (for the government) struggled with hypotheticals about granular tracking in private spaces, Gorsuch quipped:

  "Yes, because it's totally inconsistent with your theory,"
  which drew audible laughs in the courtroom. [20:54]

Arguments from the Left ([10:46]-[15:00])

• Concern that broad geofence warrants are digital “fishing expeditions” without individualized suspicion, violating the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause standard.

• Ian Millhiser (Vox):

  “...most of the justices appeared even more concerned about some of the implications of [the government’s] arguments."
  [11:40]

• Madhuba K. Denny (Balls and Strikes):

  “Google received its first geofence warrant in 2016. Today, Google receives over 11,000 geofence requests a year, representing over a quarter of all warrants it receives in the United States…”
  [13:40]

Arguments from the Right ([15:00]-[16:35])

• Some on the right argue geofence warrants only impact those who willingly share their data. Others see the practice as a slippery slope toward privacy erosions.

• Wall Street Journal editorial:

  “Applying old principles to new technologies can be tricky, but Shatri v. US shouldn’t be. The data … came from an optional Google feature … Solid work, detective.”
  “Would detectives be limited to inquiring about specific customers? It’s difficult to see this as the right constitutional balance between privacy and public safety.”
  [15:12]

• Cheryl K. Chumley (Washington Times):

  “Just because an American carries a cell phone does not mean the government has the right to track and surveil using data from that phone without going the normal Fourth Amendment warrant route.”
  [16:10]

Legal Experts’ Views ([16:35]-[18:10])

• Legal scholars see this as a watershed Fourth Amendment case.

• Paul R. Townsend (NY Law Journal):

  “Rather than developing suspicion directed at a specific person, [the warrant] compelled Google to disclose data concerning every individual within the designated area and worked backward to identify a target… The Supreme Court will now decide whether geofence warrants present the same danger in modern form.”
  [17:00]

• Orin Kerr (Reason):
  Predicts a narrow or cautious ruling requiring geofence warrants to be “limited in time and space” and likely sending the case back to lower courts for elaboration.
  [17:53]

---

Isaac Saul’s Take ([18:40]-[26:41])

• Saul uses a 1950s analogy—imagining if police could search everyone in a bank’s vicinity after a heist, and whether digital dragnets differ in a constitutional sense from this.
• Acknowledges a “novel element”: with geofencing, law enforcement compels a private company to hand over vast data, not just what’s observable in public.
• Saul leans toward law enforcement in the facts of this case (“they first tried to solve the robbery in a traditional manner...they sought an anonymized list...narrowed to a small subset...and it worked.”) [18:55]
• Points out that only users who opted in to location sharing were affected, citing government’s argument that “2/3 of Google users don’t actually hand over the location data” at issue.
• But, Saul’s libertarian inclinations on privacy eventually make him lean toward caution:

  “If I choose to leave my window shades open… that does not mean those same people could set up a camera outside my house, record footage of my family in my home, and then be compelled to turn it over to law enforcement […] That part I’m not so sure.” [19:37]

• Noted his main concern surfaces when justices ask about Gmail, calendars, and the risk of broad warrants sweeping in far more data than intended.
• Concludes:

  “When I’m in doubt, my inclinations are always toward privacy. So here, even while believing geofencing warrants in general seem constitutional, I hope the Court clearly defines a very high bar for accessing data from a private company.” [21:45]

• Predicts a likely “narrow ruling... though I’m unsure exactly how or in which direction.” [22:15]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• Justice Gorsuch, on slippery slopes:

  "Does this logic extend to your Gmail, your Google Photos, your Google Calendar, your Google Docs? Is all of that suddenly accessible without a specific warrant?" ([19:30], paraphrased by Isaac Saul)

• Isaac Saul, on the privacy paradox:

  “That does not mean those same people could set up a camera outside my house... and then be compelled to turn it over to law enforcement…” ([19:37])

• Funny courtroom moment:

  "Yes, because it's totally inconsistent with your theory,"
  (Justice Gorsuch, [20:54])

---

Additional Sections

Listener Questions ([26:41]-[29:26])

• Listener Robert (Minneapolis): Asks why Tangle uses primarily East/West Coast news sources.
• Isaac responds carefully, notes the staff and outlets are often geographically diverse, but acknowledges regional bias in national news coverage is a real concern; Tangle incorporates local sources when available, though national issues are often best covered by national outlets.

Deeper Look: Legal History ([29:26]-[31:42])

• Audrey Moorhead reviews Katz v. United States (1967), which established that the Fourth Amendment “protects people, not places,” setting precedent on “reasonable expectations of privacy.”

---

Conclusion

This episode skillfully unpacks the unique constitutional questions at the heart of geofence warrants, highlighting the Supreme Court’s challenge in bringing centuries-old privacy law to bear on rapidly evolving technologies. The discussion is nuanced and balanced, showing deep ambivalence and divided opinion among justices, pundits, and the public.
Isaac Saul’s closing reflection captures the stakes:

“How the Court takes its first steps into this new terrain are huge, and how they will do that is, for now, still unclear.” ([22:50])

---

Timestamps for Main Segments

• [02:12] — Episode theme and case intro (Isaac Saul)
• [05:45] — Case summary and background (Audrey Moorhead)
• [10:46] — Left-leaning perspectives
• [15:00] — Right-leaning perspectives
• [16:35] — Legal expert analysis
• [18:40] — Isaac Saul’s in-depth take and courtroom quotes
• [26:41] — Listener Q&A on media bias (Robert, Minneapolis)
• [29:26] — Deeper legal look: Katz v. United States

---

For listeners interested in constitutional law, privacy, and technology, this episode provides an accessible yet thorough exploration of one of the Supreme Court’s most significant digital age challenges yet.

Transcript

[Fin AI Agent Representative]

AI is transforming customer service. It's real and it works. And with fin, we've built the number one AI agent for customer service. We're seeing lots of cases where it's solving up to 90% of real queries for real businesses. This includes the real world, complex stuff like issuing a refund or canceling an order. And we also see it when FIN goes up against competitors. It's top of all the performance benchmarks, top of the G2 leaderboard. And if you're not happy, we'll refund you up to a million dollars, which. Which I think says it all. Check it out for yourself at Fin

[Grow Therapy Advertiser]

AI, the to do list doesn't stop, and neither does the pressure to keep up with it. If you've been running on fumes, Grow Therapy makes it easier to find care that's covered by insurance and actually built around you. Whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th. Grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. You can search by what matters like insurance specialists, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as two days. And if something comes up, you can Cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. Grow helps you find therapy on your time. Whatever challenges you're facing. Grow Therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans. Sessions average about $21 with insurance, and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growththerapy.com acast today to get started. That's growthherapy.com acast growtherapy.com acast availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.

[Progressive Insurance Advertiser]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

[Narrator / Lemonada Media Host]

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.

[Isaac Saul]

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle Podcast. A place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of my take. I'm your host Isaac Sullen. On today's episode we're talking about the Supreme Court case around GEO fencing. Pretty interesting new topic. It is something the court has not really taken on yet. It's related to search and seizures and the fourth Amendment. We're going to talk about exactly what happened, share some views from the left and the right and then as always. I'll give you my take. Today I'm joined by Audrey Moorhead, who's hosting our podcast with me. Before I pass it over to Audrey, I do want to give you a quick heads up. I'm calling on all Minnesotans. That's right. This Saturday, May 2nd, I'm speaking at St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota, about 45 minutes outside Minneapolis. I'm going to be moderating a panel on innovations in journalism at 10:30am Central and then I'll be delivering a closing address for the conference at 2:30pm and if you are in the Twin Cities and you're free on Saturday, you should consider coming out. It is free and open to the public. There are no tickets required and there's a link to more information on our episode page. With that, I'm going to send it over to Audrey and I'll be back for my take.

[Audrey Moorhead]

Thanks, Isaac. Here are today's quick hits. Number one we have a breaking hit, which is that the Supreme Court ruled in a 63 decision that Louisiana must redraw its congressional map, finding that the state improperly used race to draw districts that helped minority communities elect their preferred candidates. The Decision weakens Section 2 of the Voting Rights act, which prohibits districting practices that give members of a racial group less opportunity than others to elect candidates of their choice. Number two A grand jury in North Carolina indicted former Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey on charges of making a threat against the president and transmitting it through interstate commerce. The case is related to a picture Comey posted on his Instagram account in May 2025 that showed Seychelles arranged to read 8647, which some interpreted as a call to violence against President Trump. Comey said he is innocent and will fight the charges. Number three the United Arab Emirates announced it will leave the Organization of the Petroleum exporting countries, or OPEC, on May 1, citing the country's long term strategic and economic vision and evolving energy profile. Number four King Charles III delivered an address to a joint meeting of Congress highlighting the historic relationship between the United States and Britain and calling for a continued alliance. Number five the Federal Communications Commission announced in a filing that it is reviewing ABC's broadcast licenses, saying that ABC's parent company Disney may have corporate diversity policies that violate anti discrimination rules. The network's licenses were not due to be reviewed until 2028 at the earliest, and the announcement follows President Donald Trump's criticism of ABC's late night host Jimmy Kimmel. Number six the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday in a challenge to the Trump administration's attempt to revoke temporary protected stat for Haitian and Syrian nationals.

[Narrator / Lemonada Media Host]

Moving now to the Supreme Court, the court is now hearing arguments in a

[Audrey Moorhead]

landmark case that could impact the Fourth Amendment.

[Narrator / Lemonada Media Host]

Justices must now weigh the legality of geofence warrants and whether investigators are justified in scanning cell phone data in hopes of of finding a suspect or person of interest.

[Audrey Moorhead]

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chatri v. United States, a case exploring whether the practice of scanning cell phone data of individuals based on their proximity to a crime scene is constitutional. The case is the first time the Supreme Court has considered the use of geofencing warrants, which enable the police to cast wide digital dragnets to investigate a suspected crime. Challengers say the practice is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches, while the government argues that customers forfeited the expectation of privacy by sharing their data with large private data providers. The justices appeared split on the decision after two hours of oral arguments. The court is expected to issue its decision before the end of the summer. For some additional context, the man at the center of the case, Akello Chatri, was indicted on charges of armed bank robbery in Midlothian, Virginia in 2019. According to the indictment, Chatri ordered the manager to empty the safe at gunpoint, then fled with approximately $195,000. Police reviewed the bank surveillance footage and observed a man who appeared to be the thief talking on his cell phone, then applied for a geofence warrant directed at Google to search its collected cell phone location information. Investigators used the data to narrow their search perimeter to a 17 and a half acre area around the bank, eventually leading to Shatri's identification and prosecution. Shatri conditionally pleaded guilty to armed robbery in 2019 and was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison. Shatri appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2025, which affirmed the use of geofence data in his conviction. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in January 2026. The justices appeared split during oral arguments, with some Republican appointed justices showing deference to the government's use of GFN data and some Democrat appointed justices appearing sympathetic to arguments that the use of this data is unconstitutional. Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that Chatri opted in to sharing his location data with a third party and questioned whether geofencing warrants against companies collecting this data were categorically different from search warrants against individuals. Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to disagree, comparing the government's acquisition of cell phone data to an illegal police search. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan both appeared ambivalent during questioning. Justice Barrett focused her questions on when a cell phone user could have a reasonable expectation of privacy with their data, suggesting geofencing warrants applied to public spaces may be treated differently from usage in private spaces. Justice Kagan asked repeatedly if the company's use of the data could determine the court's decision. Now we'll get into what the left, right and legal experts are saying about the arguments in Chatri. Then I'll pass it over to executive editor Isaac Saul for his take.

[Isaac Saul]

We'll be right back after this quick break.

[Grow Therapy Advertiser]

The to do list doesn't stop, and neither does the pressure to keep up with it. If you've been running on fumes, GrowTherapy makes it easier to find care that's covered by insurance and actually built around you. Whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th. Grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. You can search by what matters like insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as two days. And if something comes up, you can Cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. Pro Grow helps you find therapy on your time. Whatever challenges you're facing. Grow Therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans. Sessions average about $21 with insurance, and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growththerapy.com acast today to get started. That's growththerapy.com acast growtherapy.com acast Availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.

[Narrator / Lemonada Media Host]

48 million people in the United States are adolescents between the ages of 14 and 24. They're working, parenting, leading, sometimes all at once.

[Audrey Moorhead]

I'm balancing work and being a mom at the same time, and I'm still on track to graduate with my bachelor's next year.

[Narrator / Lemonada Media Host]

So what do today's young people need to truly thrive to tune in to good things from Lemonada Media to hear the six part Thrive series.

[Audrey Moorhead]

First up, what the left is saying. Many on the left suggest the court will issue a narrow ruling reining in the use of geofence searches. Some say a ruling against Chatri would be a blow to all Americans rights. In Vox, Ian Millhiser said the Supreme Court seems a bit nervous about letting the police track you with your phone. Most of the justice's questions to Adam Unakowski, the lawyer for a criminal defendant who was convicted of robbing a bank, appeared skeptical of Yunakowski's claims that the Constitution places strict limits on the government's ability to track people through their cell phones. But in the second half of the argument, after Justice Department lawyer Eric Fagan took the podium, most of the justices appeared even more concerned about some of the implications of Fagan's arguments. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted shortly after Fagan began his argument, if the government has too much ability to track people using their cell phones, it could potentially learn the identity of everyone who attended a particular religious service or everyone who ended a particular political meeting. Meanwhile, several other justices appeared worried that the government lawyer's arguments would permit police to comb through many people's emails or their personal calendar and photos without first obtaining a warrant. It appears likely that the court will hand down a cautious decision in Shatri, one that reads Carpenter to require police to always obtain a warrant before they attempt to track someone using their cell phone. In Balls and Strikes, Madhuba K. Denny asked, does your use of Google Maps give cops permission to track your location? The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and to that end it explicitly requires that warrants be based upon probable cause and that they particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. This means that police aren't supposed to go on fishing expeditions, willy nilly, but here the detective on the case, Hilton indiscriminately searched the phones of people inside a circle with a diameter spanning three football fields and developed his suspicion along the way. The question now before the Supreme Court is whether the execution of this specific geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. But the answer will affect many more people than just Shatri. Google received its first geofence warrant in 2016. Today, Google receives over 11,000 geofence requests a year, representing over a quarter of all warrants it receives in the United States. And hundreds of millions of Google users have location history enabled on their devices. Shatri versus United States will determine if, when people switch these features on, they unknowingly relinquish their constitutional rights. Next up, what the right is Saying the right is mixed on the case, with some saying geofence searches only apply to those who have willingly given up their location data. Others say a ruling for the government would be a blow to the Fourth Amendment. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote about a Fourth Amendment tech showdown at the Supreme Court. Applying old principles to new technologies can be tricky, but Shatri v. US shouldn't be. The data that led police to Mr. Chatri came from an optional Google feature he enabled recording his location every few minutes. At the time, this information was stored on Google servers accessible to the company. The robber was on surveillance tape using a cell phone, so police sent Google a warrant for anonymous data on any devices within 150 meters of the crime. Solid work, detective. Yet the convict argues this was an illegal search. Mr. Chatri and his allies on the legal left want the court to say that the Fourth Amendment effectively bars all geofence warrants. No more asking a phone company which devices pinged a tower by the murder. Would detectives be limited to inquiring about specific customers? It's difficult to see this as the right constitutional balance between privacy and public safety. Police can dust a crime scene for fingerprints and get surveillance footage or nearby tollbooth records without identifying the suspect in advance. In the Washington Times, Cheryl K. Cholmondeley called geofence warrants a Fourth Amendment nightmare. This is how crime fighting always goes. Police want more power. Government demands more authority. Law enforcement insists on broader interpretation of the Constitution and the justification always, always, always is for safety and security, with those opposing the encroachment on their liberties and privacies being peppered with the somewhat hostile and always condescending, well, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. How about the worry of the government's ever intruding expansion into the lives of innocent American citizens? This is the type of warrant used to identify hundreds of attendees of the January 6, 2021 protests on Capitol Hill, the type of warrant that allowed law enforcement to arrest and prosecute more than 1,500. These are people who, at the time of the issuance of the warrant, haven't indicated any intent to commit a crime. Just because an American carries a cell phone does not mean the government has the right to track and surveil using data from that phone without going the normal Fourth Amendment warrant route. And finally, what Legal experts are saying Many legal experts frame the case as a key test for the Fourth Amendment. Some expect the justices to send the case back to the lower courts with new guidance. For New York Law Journal, Paul R. Townsend called the case a fork in the road for the Fourth Amendment. When this warrant was issued, the government had no identified suspect, no particular device in mind, and no individualized probable cause. Rather than developing suspicion directed at a specific person, it compelled Google to disclose data concerning every individual within the designated area and worked backward to identify a target. The government argues that this is akin to a more modern, large scale canvassing effort where law enforcement talks to strangers to inquire whether they might have any relevant information to share which may aid in the investigation. Denying the government the ability to utilize contemporary technology to solve crimes makes society less safe. The implications of this case are profound. The framers rejected general warrants because they conferred unchecked discretion upon the government while offering insufficient protection to the individual. The Supreme Court will now decide whether geofence warrants present the same danger in modern form. The majority opinion in this case will shape future investigative techniques in an increasingly digital era. Finally, in Reason Orns Kerr offered a few thoughts on the Shatri oral argument. The Justices seem likely to reject the broader arguments Shatri made that geofence warrants are categorically unconstitutional or cannot be drafted in ways that could identify suspects. They seem likely to rule that geofence warrants can be drafted constitutionally, rejecting the Fifth Circuit's view in Smith. I suspect they will likely hold that geofence warrants have to be limited in time and space and leave the details to lower courts. There were some Justices who wanted to address the multi step process of Google's warrant procedure and say new warrants were needed for those steps, but I don't know if the majority will get that far. Late in the argument, the government seemed in a conciliatory mindset, perhaps sensing a victory on the warrant issued that it didn't want to place at risk. But Smith v. Maryland expressly holds that voluntary disclosure from the home that reveals presence in the home is still not a search. And more broadly, there's no practical problem with getting warrants for location history because the technology doesn't exist anymore and probable cause was not challenged back when there was. In any event, what matters going forward is all the other online records that exist online, IP logins, et cetera. That's it for what the left, right and law experts are saying. Now it's time to head to Isaac for his take.

[Isaac Saul]

All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying. Which brings us to my take. Imagine if a similar scenario occurred 75 years ago before geofencing location were even a concept. Okelo Chatri walks into a bank. He hands them a note demanding money. Someone presses one of those silent alarm buttons that they have in heist movies that I assume also exist in the 1950s, and the bank's block gets swarmed by police. Imagine now that the cops show up in time to make a perimeter around 100 or so individuals who were in or around the bank at the time of the robbery. Would they then be able to search those 100 individuals, their person, their bags, maybe even their vehicles to check for the stolen cash. It seems to me that the answer is yes. Police could reasonably suspect anyone around the bank, and that would be a reasonable search. Here is Chatri's lawyer in real life, during oral arguments. Even if the search materialized only when the data was found and exposed to the police, the warrant would still be unconstitutional because there was not probable cause to search the virtual private papers of every single person within the geofence merely because of their proximity to the crime. End quote. I'm not quite convinced how much more protected is a virtual geofence than, say, just looking at a crime scene and learning who is in the vicinity of a crime and then searching those people? The situation contains some novel elements, of course. For instance, people in the 1950s weren't walking around with their entire location history, contact lists, and every picture they'd ever taken in their bags. Then there's the central legal question at play. Accessing and searching people in a geofence requires law enforcement to acquire and process data held by a private company. They aren't walking up to a crime scene and stopping people nearby. They are going to a private company long after a crime occurred and asking them to hand over any information about everyone who might have been there. Even for someone like me, who holds quite strong libertarian views on issues like privacy, speech, and police conduct, the facts of this case make me pretty sympathetic to law enforcement. They first tried to solve the robbery in a traditional manner. Then, while reviewing the bank's security footage, they noticed the thief was on his phone during the robbery. They sought an anonymized list of nearby users from Google, narrowed that anonymized list, then compiled identifying information only for a small subset, in this case just 3 of the people they believed to be suspects. And it worked. They got the robber. On top of that, the government only accessed data that users had to opt into sharing with Google. Roughly 2/3 of Google users don't actually hand over the location data history that was used to crack this case, according to the government's argument. As Chief Justice Roberts said, if you don't want the government to have your location history, you just flip that off. He compared this to not wanting someone to peer into your window and how you can close your window or the shades. But that actually was an analogy that turned me against the government's argument. What immediately came to mind for me was that if I choose to leave my window shades open at night, sometimes that does mean people who could walk by can peer into my home. I understand that trade off, but doesn't mean those same people could set up a camera outside my house, record footage of my family in my home, and then be compelled to turn it over to law enforcement if they asked for it. That part I'm not so sure. When I write about Supreme Court rulings, I typically use a two pronged analysis. What do I think about the legal arguments and what are the practical implications here? The Court hasn't issued its ruling yet, but in this particular case, the legal arguments were genuinely some of the most fascinating I've ever read or listened to, and I'm not at all sure how the Court will land. This is one of those cases where both sides made such compelling points about the privacy we should be granted or can expect and the downstream implications of this case going either way that I felt twisted in to knots at the end of oral arguments. Yet a few moments ultimately moved me in favor of Chatri and against the government. First, Justice Gorsuch emphasized genuine concerns about the implications of any broad ruling in favor of the government. Gorsuch asked directly, what would it mean if Shatri had no reasonable expectation of privacy with his location data, since he voluntarily shared it with Google? Does this logic extend to your Gmail, your Google Photos, your Google Calendar, your Google Docs? Is all of that suddenly accessible without a specific warrant? Because consented by using Google services? That line of questioning as a Google user stopped me in my tracks. Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigen was prepared for this question and claimed the Court had always treated the contents of one's personal thoughts as recorded differently from one's exposed public location, which is all that's at issue here. I couldn't exactly say why, but I didn't find that a particularly satisfying answer. And then the justices illuminated why through additional questions. Gorsuch, Kagan, and Barrett together pressed what if the location data were precise enough to track someone's movements inside their home? Would the government's position be that this data was accessible without a warrant? Feigan clearly gets uncomfortable arguing that. Maybe the government would argue that, but it doesn't matter, because in this case those GPS intervals weren't precise enough. Barrett then trapped him okay, so if the location data could tell us when someone went to the bathroom or their bedroom, are you saying that accessing that data without an individual warrant wouldn't be a search and thus a Fourth Amendment violation? Feigen conceded eventually that under the government's theory, that level of specificity would still probably not constitute a search. But he understood this was a very difficult argument to sustain, to which Gorsuch quipped yes, because it's totally inconsistent with your theory, which drew audible laughs in the courtro. When I'm in doubt, my inclinations are always toward privacy. So here, even while believing geofencing warrants in general seem constitutional, I hope the Court clearly defines a very high bar for accessing data from a private company. The arguments themselves made me think a narrow ruling might be coming, though I'm unsure exactly how or in which direction. Ultimately, this is the very first Supreme Court case taking on the Fourth Amendment. Implications of geofencing and the Court's past rulings are colliding head on with the new world we live in now, one where technological questions like this need to be processed through centuries old laws, precedent and legal theory. The implications of how the Court takes its first steps into this new terrain are huge, and how they will do that is, for now, still unclear. We'll be right back after this quick break.

[Progressive Insurance Advertiser]

Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why drivers have enjoyed Progressive's name your price tool for years now. With the name your price tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com find a rate that works for you with the name your price tool Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and Coverage Match Ltd. By state

[Narrator / Lemonada Media Host]

law, 48 million people in the United States are adolescents between the ages of 14 and 24. They're working, parenting, leading, sometimes all at once.

[Audrey Moorhead]

I'm balancing work and being a mom at the same time, and I'm still on track to graduate with my bachelor's next year.

[Narrator / Lemonada Media Host]

So what do today's young people need to truly thrive? Tune in to good things from Lemonada Media to hear the six part Thrive series.

[Isaac Saul]

All right, that is it for my take. Which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Robert in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Robert said, why does Tangle rely on east and west coast news sources to the exclusion of resources in quote unquote, flyover countries? Thanks for the question, Robert. We've seen you offer a more detailed version of this question in the comments on past articles, so happy to try and address it head on. You suggest? I think that Tangle is perpetuating an insidious geographical bias in our reporting by relying primarily on outlets and reporters based on the coast. Under this theory, we've created our own kind of tangle bubble that misses Nuances in reporting that might emerge if we reviewed more sources from regions like the Midwest and the South. This is a fair point. Politics coverage tends to concentrate among a few powerful outlets, and those outlets tend to gravitate toward geographical sectors, most notably New York city and Washington, D.C. which is understandable because people seeking a particular career will gravitate towards areas with a concentration of opportunities. The way Big Tech is centered in the Bay Area and many logistics companies have hubs in Chicago. However, that can create a subtle bias over time, leading to viewpoints that are naturally colored by living in New York instead of places like St. Louis or Phoenix. However, I'd offer two points of pushback against this contention. First, be careful not to conflate a news organization's name with its geographical footholds. Just because an organization is called the Washington examiner doesn't mean everyone who works there is based in Washington. Just as people work at Tangle, an organization headquartered in Philadelphia work and live across the country, so too do these outlets have reporters and news desks representing the entire United States. Axios is a national news organization with reporters across the country and in smaller cities and states. The New York Times has a Chicago bureau, and if a major story breaks in, say, Minnesota, they typically have reporters who live and work in that area to take the lead on covering this story. Second, we often look for coverage from local outlets to represent different sides of the debate. When we pull sources to quote from, we love to quote these smaller outlets more regularly on bigger national issues and not just ones local to them. However, the regional outlets don't always issue editorials on things like Supreme Court rulings, which was our topic today. We often find the arguments that represent the whole political spectrum come from outlets that specialize in national politics, but that doesn't mean we'll stop looking all right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to Audrey for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace.

[Audrey Moorhead]

Thanks, Isaac. Now we have one of our new sections, a Deeper look in the centuries since the Fourth Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court has ruled on key issues related to the amendment on several occasions. One case with particular relevance to Monday's arguments in Chatri v. United States was Katz v. United States. From 1967, Charles Katz was a prolific gambler who was known to use a public telephone booth to communicate handicaps to bookmakers. In other states, handicaps are used to level the playing field for betting on matchups between a favorite and an underdog. The FBI attached a listening device to the outside of the phone booth and recorded Katz's conversations, then used the recordings to arrest and convict him for illegal gambling activity. Katz appealed his conviction on the grounds that the recordings were made without a Warrant, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. In a 7 to 1 decision, the court sided with the gambler, finding that Fourth Amendment protections extended to people's reasonable expectations of privacy regardless of the physical space they are in, justice Potter Stewart wrote in his opinion, The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places and finally, here's our have a nice day story. KRAS gene mutations are among the most common genetic drivers of cancer, occurring in approximately 90% of pancreatic cancers and about 40% of colorectal cancers. For years, scientists have struggled to find a way to target the mutations with drugs. Now a different approach is showing promise A one size fits all vaccine. The vaccine teaches immune cells to recognize and target cells with KRAS mutations, and unlike other cancer vaccines, it does not need to be personalized to the patient. Results of phase one of a trial showed that 85% of participants who received the vaccine had an immune response to kras mutations, while 70% had an immune response triggered to other tumor cells that were not even in the vaccine. NBC News has the story and you can find it in the show Notes all right everyone, that's it for today's episode. If you want to support our work, Please head to retangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership or a bundle membership that gets you a discount on both. We will be right back tomorrow For Isaac and everyone else, this is Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead signing off. Have a great day and peace.

[Isaac Saul]

Our Executive Editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul and our Executive Producer is J. John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, with Senior Editor Will K. Back and Associate Editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsey Knuth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our [e-mail].

[Narrator / Lemonada Media Host]

48 million people in the United States are adolescents between the ages of 14 and 24. They're working, parenting, leading, sometimes all at once.

[Audrey Moorhead]

I'm balancing work and being a mom at the same time, and I'm still on track to graduate with my bachelor's next year.

[Narrator / Lemonada Media Host]

So what do today's young people need to truly thrive? Tune in to Good Things from Lemonada Media to hear the six part Thrive series.

[Audrey Moorhead]

Marketers you Know that feeling when your creative clicks, when that social post sends engagement through the roof, when your outside of the box campaign hits ROI Positive When a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers, it's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored omnichannel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities. Get the [e-mail] youm're listening to this

[Progressive Insurance Advertiser]

podcast, so I know you've got a curious mind. Here's a helpful fact you might not know yet. Drivers who switch and save with Progressive save over $900 on average. Pop over to progressive.com, answer some questions and you'll get a quick quote with discounts that are easy to come by. In fact, 99% of their auto customers earn at least one discount. Visit progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings by $946 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2024 and May 2025. Potential savings will vary.