Chatrie v. United States (2026)
In June 2026 the Supreme Court held that police acquisition of a person's cell-phone location data from Google is a Fourth Amendment search, even for a limited period and even though a technology company held the data. Writing for a six-Justice majority, Justice Kagan rejected durational thresholds and described the concern in terms that reach far beyond geofence warrants: government "possesses a virtual panopticon with which to scrutinize its citizens' activities."
The majority located the danger in the standing, comprehensive, retrospective capability itself, not in any single use of it. It then remanded on particularity and probable cause without deciding whether the architecture that makes such access possible is permissible. That question is left open, and courts are poorly placed to answer it: they decide cases one search at a time and cannot redesign the systems that make the searches possible.
Legislatures can. A state that adopts the model acts answers the question Chatrie leaves open for its own systems, before litigation answers it in a less orderly way.
Read the full analysis of Chatrie
Utah has shown it can pass
Utah's SB 260 (2025) and SB 275 (2026) incorporate elements of VIDA and PDTA, including the first statutory duty of loyalty for digital identity. SB 275 passed both chambers unanimously. Other states are engaging through the SEDI Consortium. A state that moves now joins a coalition rather than standing alone. More on Utah.
AI multiplies the power to know
Agencies are deploying AI tools that can correlate, infer and act across systems that were never connected before. A model with access to several lawful data sources can construct knowledge about a person that no single program was authorized to hold. GAAFA's governing rule, that AI inherits governmental authority and does not create it, is easiest to adopt before those deployments harden.
Procurement cycles are the window
States replace identity, benefits and case-management systems on regular cycles. Each cycle either buys surveillance-capable architecture or constitutionally sound architecture. The cost difference lies in the specifications, not in new spending, but only if the specifications change before the next contracts are signed.