By Robyn Nicole Sanders
Publication Date: 2026-05-20 20:20:00
Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story each week about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back. You’ll also receive updates on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team.
Amid the appropriate furor surrounding the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act at the close of the Supreme Court’s term, some of the biggest oral arguments of the court’s final sitting have gone a bit under the radar. In one of the term’s last cases, Chatrie v. United States, the Supreme Court last month confronted how its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence will continue to evolve in the face of modern surveillance technology. The case asks whether the Fourth Amendment still means what Americans think it means as surveillance becomes automated, invisible, and broad enough to treat entire groups of ordinary people as searchable by default.
The facts in Chatrie arrive wrapped in the familiar language…
