4th Amendment

"Members can recognize the Johnson proposal for what it is: a transparent attempt to preserve the status quo rather than answer the bipartisan calls for needed reform."

"Any expert of national security surveillance law following the government’s escalating actions on “antifa” can connect the dots to FISA electronic surveillance."

A rebuttal to George Croner’s critique of the Brennan Center’s “Myths and Facts” on FISA Section 702 backdoor searches and why RISAA falls short.

Authors write that Congress must now impose a warrant requirement for Section 702 access to Americans' communications.

A warrant mandate is unnecessary, legally mistaken, and damaging to national security as the program faces expiration on April 20, 2026.

If Secretary Mullin is serious about reforming DHS, then he should consider the following list of suggestions, based on information provided by whistleblowers.

Experts share questions Congress, journalists, and the public should ask executive branch officials on surveillance authorities.

DHS regulations do not ensure that ICE arrest warrants are supported by reliable probable cause findings. That failing poses significant Fourth Amendment risks.

DHS says ICE agents can enter homes to arrest noncitizens using administrative warrants, without judicial oversight. DHS's position has no legal basis.

An internal ICE memo authorizes agents to enter homes for immigration arrests without judicial approval, breaking with DHS policy and raising Fourth Amendment concerns.

These are questions that the Trump administration has not answered, and journalists and members of Congress could – and should – pose.

The Hasbajrami decision’s expansive view of the FISA foreign intelligence exception threatens to swallow the rule that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies to U.S.…