Publications
Scholarly essays, a law review article, and practitioner commentary developing the constitutional argument and legislative architecture of the Fiduciary Commons Framework.
Argues that the Supreme Court's 2026 Chatrie decision identifies a constitutional problem the Court's own remedial tools cannot solve, and that the Fiduciary Commons Framework provides the architectural remedy the Court's reasoning demands.
Read more →Argues that modern integrated government databases possess the four characteristics of general warrants and are therefore constitutionally prohibited under the Fourth Amendment.
Develops the constitutional argument that government's relationship to citizen data is fiduciary in nature, generating enforceable duties of loyalty, care, and confidentiality.
Extends the mosaic theory of surveillance to its architectural conclusion: if aggregation is the constitutional violation, the remedy must prevent aggregation, not just regulate access to aggregated data.
Demonstrates that the centralized data architectures government has built are procurement choices, not technological necessities, and that purpose-sequestered alternatives are operationally viable.
Why AI governance and data governance are the same problem, and why both require constitutional grounding rather than administrative policy.
Read at StateTech →What the Supreme Court's Chatrie decision means for state-level data governance frameworks and the constitutional status of government surveillance capability.
Read at IAPP →