MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Brett Kavanaugh Calls Carpenter v. United States a ‘Game Changer’ on 4th Amendment Law

The Supreme Court nominee talks warrantless government surveillance with Sen. Patrick Leahy.

C-SPANC-SPANIn 2015, Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in the case of Klayman v. Obama in which he argued that the National Security Agency's bulk metadata collection program "is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." Is that still his view today? Does Kavanaugh, who is now a Supreme Court nominee, continue to believe that the Fourth Amendment suffers no violation when the federal government engages in the wholesale warrantless collection of every Americans' telephone record metadata?

During a brief but telling exchange with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) at his confirmation hearings last week, Kavanaugh gave the impression that his thinking on the matter has in fact changed.

"In your concurrence in Klayman v. Obama," Leahy said to Kavanaugh, you "went out of your way to say that not only is the dragnet collection of America's telephone records by the National Security Agency OK because it is not a search…even if it is a search, it is justified in order to prevent terrorism." Why?

Kavanaugh began his response by invoking precedent. "I was trying to articulate what I thought based on the precedent at the time—at the time when your information went to a third party and the government obtained the information from the third party the existing Supreme Court precedent was that your privacy interest was essentially zero," he said.

But then Kavanaugh pivoted to the present. "The opinion for the Supreme Court by Chief Justice Roberts this past spring in the Carpenter case is a game changer," he told Leahy. "I've talked repeatedly in this hearing about how technology will be one of the huge issues with the Fourth Amendment going forward, and you see Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion in Carpenter, that alters, and really is a game changer, from the precedent on which I was writing at that time."

In his majority opinion in Carpenter v. United States, Chief Justice Roberts ruled that warrantless government tracking of a cellphone user via his cellphone location records violated the Fourth Amendment. "A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere," Roberts wrote. "We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier's database of physical location information."

Sen. Leahy then asked the SCOTUS nominee a follow-up question: "Do you think if Carpenter had been decided you would have written the concurrence you did in Klayman?"

"I don't see how I could have," Kavanaugh replied.

Leahy appeared pleased with that answer. "Thank you," he said. "I agree with that."

Leahy has some cause to be pleased. After all, it's notable that Kavanaugh did not simply describe Carpenter as a new precedent and therefore entitled to the normal level of respect under principles of stare decisis; rather, Kavanaugh called Carpenter a "game changer," suggesting that the ruling might have influenced his own thinking. If that turns out to be the case, it would be welcome news for Fourth Amendment advocates.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There's a possibility he's not going to be terrible on one of the big issues he was going to be terrible on? Maybe he won't be so bad aft- WHAT ABOUT OUR UTERI???

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I would be very, very happy if he turned out to be a solid privacy defender. I'm not following any of this too close, but I recall that being my one significant issue with him.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Precedent is the ultimate 'Whataboutism".

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Not only is Paul Krugman a fantastic writer on economics, he's also an insightful observer of Supreme Court issues. Everybody needs to read his recent New York Times piece Kavanaugh Will Kill the Constitution.

    Remember, there's still time to contact your Senators and urge them to vote against this dangerous right-wing extremist who will ban abortion and birth control, kick African Americans out of college, and side with Drumpf if any #TrumpRussia related issues come before the Supreme Court.

    #CancelKavanaugh
    #Resist

  • Libertymike||

    Kicking African Americans out of college would have a salutary effect upon campus rape culture and therefore benefit women who would no longer fear being attacked by brutish blacks.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Which would be somewhat offset by an increase in fat chick suicide rates...

  • creech||

    Don't forget his support of euthanasia to end social security and medicare, and that he personally uses 1 million plastic straws per day.

  • Fairbanks||

    This piece by Krugman is as over-the-top, and accurate, as his prediction that Trump's election would cause a world-wide major recession that would end maybe never.

  • PG23COLO||

    Krugman is an idiot, a statist, and a strong believer in government control of everything. He is an enemy of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. And he is thoroughly political.

  • Dillinger||

    good.

  • PG23COLO||

    Kavanaugh uses the 4th Amendment like others on the Supreme Court have for the past century - they pay lip service to respecting individual rights against unwarranted and unreasonable government invasion, while continuing to justify or ignore nearly every intrusion the police want to employ. Carpenter is a very limited decision which won't be of much help to any criminal suspect or criminal defendant.
    Supreme Court 4th Amendment jurisprudence is part of a confidence game.

  • retiredfire||

    When you rely in government being prohibited from doing things "unreasonably", you've lost already.
    The 4th, having that word included, makes it meaningless.

  • Duelles||

    Leahy! No body cares with what you agree. Seriously!

  • Jacky888||

    the 8 best air purifier for wildfire smoke airpurifiers-review

  • Jacky888||

    huawei honor 8 hwfrd frd tl00 howtoandroitroot

  • Jacky888||

  • Jacky888||

    review lens zeiss batis 2 8 18 wide angle for e mount lensreviewlab

  • Jacky888||

    blackview p10000 pro frpbypassapkpro

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online