For years, the ACLU and other privacy advocates have been challenging law enforcement’s growing use of reverse warrants. These problematic warrants include, most prominently, reverse location warrants (also known as geofence warrants), which seek location data to identify anyone who was within a defined area during a specific time period. A second type, reverse keyword warrants, demand the identity of every person who entered a certain word or phrase into a search engine during a set timeframe and possibly within a defined geographic area. The constitutionality of reverse warrants is highly suspect because, like general warrants that are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, they permit searches of vast quantities of private, personal information without identifying any particular criminal suspects or demonstrating probable cause to believe evidence will be located in the corporate databases they search.

Data provided by Google, which is believed to be the most frequent target of reverse warrants due to its extensive collection of customer location data from Android phones and Internet search data from its eponymous search engine, reflects a significant rise in law enforcement’s use of reverse location warrants. For example, the number of reverse location warrants Google received from the federal government grew by 1,171 percent between 2018 and 2020, while the number of reverse location warrants issued to Google by state and local law enforcement grew by 813 percent in California, 901 percent in Florida, 1,291 percent in Michigan, 1,867 percent in Missouri, and 5,333 percent in Massachusetts during that same time period. While reverse warrants present a threat to everyone’s privacy, they pose an even greater threat to communities of color, low-income communities, and other groups that are already the target of over-policing. Further, in the aftermath of Dobbs, the criminalization of abortion has dramatically increased the likelihood of reverse warrants being used to identify people seeking reproductive care.

Fortunately, at the time the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the ACLU was already fighting against reverse warrants. In 2022, the ACLU’s affiliates in New York and Utah were both involved in legislative efforts to prohibit their use. Each of these early efforts provided important momentum to the anti-reverse warrant cause. In 2023, building upon the anti-reverse warrant efforts in Utah and New York, the ACLU launched a nationwide, multistate effort to ban reverse warrants and saw important progress made on bills in California, Missouri, and Delaware.

During the same time period, the ACLU filed a series of friend-of-the-court briefs arguing that reverse warrants were unconstitutional and conducted without sufficient safeguards. Most recently, we collaborated with library groups to tell the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that Google Search queries, which were the target of a reverse keyword warrant, constitute some of the most private data individuals have and must be protected by state and federal Constitutions.

The ACLU also filed a brief in the Fourth Circuit case of United States v. Chatrie, the first case where the defendant called witnesses from Google to demystify the technology and cast doubt on the reliability of geofence surveillance. There, we argued that the geofence warrant for Google location data was so overbroad and unjustified that it was patently invalid.

Watching all this unfold, Google recognized it would increasingly be drawn into the reverse warrant fight.. To avoid being repeatedly placed at the center of these fights, Google announced last month that it was changing how Android phones collect and store user location data. Previously, the “Location History” data collected by a user’s Android phone would be sent to Google; now, that data will be stored by default on each user’s phone in a manner that is not accessible by Google, much in the way iPhones do. This means that going forward, when Google receives a reverse location warrant, it will not have access to the data needed to comply. Given that no other known collector of location data has Google’s broad customer reach, which is needed to make a reverse warrant useful (learning the identities of a tiny fraction of the people within a geofence is generally not helpful to police), it is highly likely law enforcement use of reverse location warrants will decline, at least for the time being. Consequently, far fewer reverse location warrants will turn people who have done nothing wrong into criminal suspects and threaten others who are merely exercising their basic human rights.

While this is unquestionably an important victory for privacy and the many other rights privacy enables, it is not a complete one. The risk presented by reverse keyword searches (which governments can try to use to identify anyone who enters a term like “Planned Parenthood” or “MAGA” into a search engine) remains unimpacted by Google’s location data collection changes. Further, the risk that law enforcement will use emerging technologies to circumvent centuries-old constitutional protections, like the prohibition against general warrants, will continue until contemporary legislatures and courts clearly and affirmatively reject such loopholes.

For these reasons, the ACLU will continue to advocate for bans on the use of reverse warrants at the state and federal level, with an enhanced emphasis on the unaltered risks presented by reverse keyword warrants. In court, like our brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, we will continue to assert that these searches, which are akin to reading someone’s most complete and intimate diary, are unconstitutional and give police far too much unchecked power.

Behind closed doors, the White House and Congress continue to negotiate major changes to border and immigration law as part of a larger deal on foreign military assistance. One of the rumored proposals is to expand a program called Family Expedited Removal management, or FERM.

Already, we’ve seen families in this program suffering harm and denied due process. But with the potential for a second Trump administration, the risks of this program are even more severe — including widespread surveillance.

Operated by Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), FERM rushes families seeking asylum through a fast-track deportation process within days of their arrival, preventing them from accessing crucial legal support and jeopardizing their ability to effectively present their asylum claims. Fewer than 3 percent of families are able to obtain a lawyer to help them prepare for their cases. Additionally, newly arrived parents have had to recount horrific details of their trauma and persecution, often in front of their children. ICE has significantly expanded the program since creating it in May, outsourcing work to a subsidiary of Geo Group, a private prison company with a track-record of human rights abuses. Currently, the program applies to around 500 families.

FERM subjects people to intense and continuous GPS surveillance with no justification other than their status as recently arrived migrants. Heads of household are required to wear ankle monitors and adhere to a home curfew from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. These extreme physical surveillance measures not only punish families seeking asylum, but also treat them as public safety threats, without any individualized assessment. For people who have recently endured trauma on their harrowing journey to safety, these measures are particularly demeaning and frightening.

People forced to wear ankle monitors report experiencing physical pain, such as cramps and impaired circulation. They describe thoughts of suicide and social isolation, with one person likening it to a “modern day scarlet letter.” The fear of malfunctions or battery failure of a monitor can increase anxiety not only for the person wearing the monitor but also for their entire family. The combination of a home curfew and GPS monitor turns routine family activities — like a midnight run for baby formula or a visit to Urgent care with a child — into frightening risks of separation and deportation.

Tell Congress: Protect families seeking asylum

Sacrificing families and children seeking protection for short-term political points is unacceptable.

This is all unnecessary. Studies show that notifying individuals of upcoming court appearances through various means, including phone calls, recorded messages, mail, text messages, and emails is highly effective at ensuring people appear in legal proceedings. Moreover, providing access to legal counsel is far more effective; immigrant families with legal representation attend their immigration hearings 99 percent of the time, according to one study.

Bigger picture, Congress needs to consider how FERM normalizes 24-hour suspicionless surveillance. We should all be concerned when the government seeks authority to keep thousands, and potentially millions of people under constant watch without any pretext of criminal investigation. The people currently under the scrutiny of FERM are seeking sanctuary in our nation, often fleeing dictatorships and political persecution, making this surveillance even more perverse.

As Congress considers codifying and expanding this program, it should weigh the full ramifications. FERM’s electronic monitoring may seem benign, especially in comparison to keeping tens of thousands of people locked up in immigration detention for months or years. But imagine what a second Trump administration would do if Congress hands it authority and capacity to identify and locate immigrants around the clock, as some extremist state politicians are already threatening to do.

In a second Trump presidency, ICE could expand FERM to the over 3 million immigrants with pending cases or deferred removal. It could require them to wear GPS monitors or modify the current SmartLink app for continuous monitoring. They could also use this 24-hour location access to identify, track, and pursue its agenda for mass deportations, even using historical location data to track relationships between immigrants and their family members. If that happened, FERM would drive people further into the shadows instead of fulfilling its purported purpose of facilitating immigrants’ appearance in court and appointments.

FERM under a second Trump administration could also stifle dissent. The previous administration weaponized ICE and Customs and Border Protection to surveil activists and intimidate and attack protestors. We fear that similar, if not worse, actions may occur in a second Trump term. People under 24-hour GPS monitoring by ICE might be afraid to participate in protests and organizing — and this would affect not just them, but also people who live in a mixed-status household. Currently, one in every 15 U.S. residents live in a mixed-status household — that is, with at least one undocumented person.

We need Congress to pass immigration reform that modernizes our system to meet the challenges of the border. It should ensure families are not left in years of processing limbo, and that American businesses are able to access this labor source. That includes better court processing, ending administrative and legal backlogs, and providing a pathway to legal status for millions of our immigrant neighbors, loved ones, and co-workers.

But these solutions are not even part of the current negotiations. The ACLU is urging all members of Congress to reject any immigration and border deal that grants the anti-immigrant, extremist wish list of former President Trump in exchange for unrelated foreign aid.

For people across the country, reliable internet access allows them to engage with the world. Think about your day – how many times did you go online, and what were you able to accomplish? This April, however, 23 million households are likely to lose access to affordable internet unless Congress acts now to fund the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), a federal broadband subsidy for low-income households.

Tell Congress: Pass the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act!

At least 1 in 5 American households don’t have home internet service, often because they cannot afford to. The deepest rift in this digital...

Access to broadband is one of the most important equity issues of our time. That’s why it’s such a big problem when access to broadband isn’t universal – and it isn’t. Historically marginalized communities, including Black, Latine, Indigenous, rural and low-income consumers are all far less likely to have access to the internet. One of the top reasons for this disparity is subscription cost. U.S. broadband prices are amongst the most expensive in the world – with the average U.S. household paying $84.37 a month, compared to $46.83 in Europe and $64.29 in Asia. For many households, the high price of an internet subscription may mean that, when times get tough, they have to choose: broadband or food.

The ACP is a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) program designed to help low-income households pay for their internet service by offering a $30 monthly subsidy, or a $75 monthly subsidy for those residing on tribal lands. Eligible households include those who receive many other federal subsidies, including Medicaid, food stamps, Pell grants, or who fall below 200 percent of the federal poverty line. Additionally, because many broadband providers agreed to offer ACP-eligible households a plan for $30 or less – broadband subscriptions are essentially free for some enrollees.

Congress created the ACP in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and appropriated $14.2 billion dollars to keep the program funded for five years. However, due to incredibly high demand, that initial appropriation didn’t last nearly as long as intended. In April 2024, the FCC anticipates that the program’s funding will be exhausted. If Congress does not step in to fund the program, millions will be disconnected. This will have a devastating impact on individuals’ ability to access the resources they need to thrive.

Luckily, a bipartisan and bicameral group of legislators are trying to save the ACP. In January, Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), alongside Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), introduced the ACP Extension Act. That legislation would allot $7 billion to keep the ACP funded through the end of 2024.

If you care about equity, you should care about access to broadband. The average person spends nearly seven hours a day online, and those who cannot are at an extreme disadvantage. For school-aged children or adult learners, the inability to get online at home makes it harder to complete assignments or attend online classes, ultimately jeopardizing higher education and career prospects.

The lack of broadband can even have negative health impacts. For example, many rural communities lack specialists and resources needed to handle complex medical issues. It can also be particularly challenging for rural Americans, especially low-income rural Americans without reliable transportation, to regularly drive to their nearest city for medical care. Telehealth enables these communities – or any community with a dearth of health resources – to access the care they need and deserve.

Broadband also helps individuals access information that supports free expression, reproductive health, and the right to vote. The internet has become the place to exercise our First Amendment rights. Without affordable internet access, however, not only would individuals not be able to speak out, but they’d lose the ability to find information.

In the LGBTQ community, internet access helps individuals find resources and build community with others like them – even when those support systems may not exist in their hometowns. In our post-Roe v. Wade world, broadband access helps individuals access accurate and reliable information so they can make the best decision for their health and future, including unbiased sex education, the best forms of birth control for their body, and information on where to access abortion care if they want to end a pregnancy. Broadband access also allows voters to find their polling location, and to learn more about candidates’ platforms and policies.

Ultimately, the ACP is how our nation can ensure that cost isn’t a barrier to accessing the internet. If you benefit from the program yourself, or simply want everyone to have the same opportunity to engage in online life, contact Congress, and tell them this cannot wait. The ACP must be funded now – or we risk disenfranchising the millions of Americans who rely on this vital service.