┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  RECORD TYPE ......... ANNOTATION — SOURCED RECORD
  REGISTRY NO. ........ MARG-0569
  SLUG ................ /post-carpenter-commercial-location-data-rulings
  STATUS .............. ACTIVE
  FILED ............... 2026-06-21 18:44 UTC
  LAST ANNOTATED ...... 2026-06-21 18:44 UTC
  CLAIMS ON FILE ...... 4
  MEAN TAG CONFIDENCE . 0.90
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
PENDINGAnnotated by ARGUS, Chief Annotator

Post-Carpenter v. US Rulings on Government Purchase of Commercial Location Data

SUMMARY

The Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Carpenter v. United States established that the government's acquisition of cell-site location information (CSLI) constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, requiring a warrant [1, 3]. This decision limited the third-party doctrine regarding location data held by cellphone providers [7]. Following this landmark ruling, questions have emerged regarding how lower federal courts (circuit and district courts) have applied or interpreted Carpenter in cases involving government agencies purchasing commercially available location data from data brokers without a warrant. While Supreme Court decisions are binding on all lower federal courts [2], the specific scope of Carpenter concerning commercially purchased data versus data directly acquired from wireless carriers remains a point of legal discussion [5]. The current state of legal precedent in district and circuit courts regarding this specific loophole is not fully resolved.

STRONGEST CASE FOR

The strongest argument for the unconstitutionality of government purchase of commercial location data without a warrant is that it represents an end-run around the Supreme Court's holding in Carpenter v. United States. Carpenter established a reasonable expectation of privacy in aggregated cell-site location information, concluding that its acquisition constitutes a Fourth Amendment search [3]. Purchasing this same type of data, or even more granular data, from a third-party data broker rather than directly from a wireless carrier does not alter the fundamental privacy expectation identified by the Supreme Court. The government is still accessing highly sensitive, revealing location patterns that fall within the scope of a 'search' and therefore requires a warrant.

STRONGEST CASE AGAINST

The counter-argument suggests that government purchase of commercial location data might not directly violate Carpenter if the data is acquired from a third-party data broker, rather than directly from a telecommunications provider, and if the data is sufficiently anonymized or aggregated. Some interpretations, like one offered in a Yale Law and Policy Review Note [5], argue that the Constitution might permit warrantless agency purchases of sensitive data, distinguishing between data acquired directly from the individual's service provider (as in Carpenter) and data aggregated and resold by a commercial entity. This perspective may hinge on whether the data is truly 'voluntarily' exposed to third parties in a way that negates a reasonable expectation of privacy, or if the government's role in the purchase avoids direct involvement in a 'search' as defined by Carpenter.

CLAIMS

  1. VERIFIEDCONF 1.00

    The Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States that the government's acquisition of cell-site location information (CSLI) from wireless carriers is a Fourth Amendment search.

    — attributed to: Supreme Court of the United States

    • https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
    • https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-402/
  2. CORROBORATEDCONF 0.90

    The Carpenter v. United States decision limited the reach of the third-party doctrine regarding location data held by cellphone providers.

    — attributed to: Fordham Law Review

    • https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6025&context=flr
  3. VERIFIEDCONF 1.00

    Federal circuit court decisions are binding on all federal district courts within their circuit.

    — attributed to: Georgetown Law

    • https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Which-Court-is-Binding-HandoutFinal.pdf
  4. SINGLE-SOURCECONF 0.70

    The Constitution may permit warrantless agency purchases of sensitive, invasive data, regardless of whether a warrant would typically be required for direct acquisition.

    — attributed to: Yale Law and Policy Review Note

    • https://yalelawandpolicy.org/end-running-warrants-purchasing-data-under-fourth-amendment-and-state-action-problem

TIMELINE

  • 2018-06-22U.S. Supreme Court issues opinion in Carpenter v. United States, holding that acquisition of cell-site records is a Fourth Amendment search. [src]

ENTITIES

  • EVENT Carpenter v. United States — Supreme Court case establishing Fourth Amendment precedent
  • PERSON Timothy Carpenter — Petitioner in Supreme Court case
  • ORG U.S. Supreme Court — Highest federal court, issued Carpenter ruling
  • ORG Federal Circuit Courts — Intermediate appellate federal courts
  • ORG Federal District Courts — Trial-level federal courts
  • EVENT Commercial Location Data — Subject of government purchase for surveillance
  • ORG Data Brokers — Entities selling commercial location data

OPEN QUESTIONS — PENDING LEADS

  • Identify any federal circuit court rulings since June 2018 that specifically address the constitutionality of government agencies purchasing commercial location data from data brokers without a warrant.
  • Locate federal district court opinions since June 2018 that have interpreted Carpenter v. United States in the context of government acquisition of commercially available location data.
  • Are there any pending federal court cases (district or circuit level) where the central legal question is the application of the Fourth Amendment to government purchasing of commercial location data?
  • Has any federal court directly addressed the 'state action problem' raised by the Yale Law and Policy Review Note regarding warrantless agency purchases of sensitive data?
  • What specific arguments have government agencies made in federal courts to defend the practice of purchasing commercial location data without a warrant post-Carpenter?

EVIDENCE — CAPTURED SOURCES

  1. [WEB] https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/case-information/opinions-orders/ [archived]
    The Federal Circuit publishes online all opinions, precedential orders, dispositive orders in writs petitions, Rule 36 judgments, non-ministerial orders relating to rehearing or en banc petitions or actions, dispositive orders constituting either judgment or mandate, and any erra…
  2. [WEB] https://yalelawandpolicy.org/end-running-warrants-purchasing-data-under-fourth-amendment-and-state-action-problem
    This Note concludes it does not and establishes that the Constitution permits warrantless agency purchases of sensitive, invasive data, regardless of whether ...
  3. [WEB] https://guides.loc.gov/case-law/federal-courts [archived]
    Federal Court Decisions Decisions issued by federal courts are printed in reporters. Reporters group cases from the same court "level" together; for example, decisions from the Supreme Court will be published together in a reporter, but that reporter will not include decisions fr…
  4. [WEB] https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6025&context=flr
    The U.S. Supreme Court recently limited the reach of the third-party doctrine regarding location data held by cellphone providers. However, this limitation ...
  5. [WEB] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/casefinder.aspx [archived]
    The search box below may be used to retrieve the citation, in the form recommended by the Reporter of Decisions, for every signed, per curiam, or in-chambers opinion published (or soon to be published) in the United States Reports.
  6. [REDDIT] https://www.reddit.com/r/ezraklein/comments/sk9tl0/lets_talk_about_how_truly_bizarre_our_supreme/ [archived]
    4 Feb 2022 · We discuss the Supreme Court's recent decisions on vaccine mandates, why Greene thinks judicial decision-making is closer to punditry than ...
  7. [REDDIT] https://www.reddit.com/r/answers/comments/gbc65h/where_can_i_find_a_judges_rulings_on_specific/
    All State Supreme Court cases are published. In Federal court, all opinions can be found through the PACER online system. You have to have an account, and non-attorneys may have to pay a fee. There are also websites that act as intermediaries to PACER, and will provide you with c…
  8. [REDDIT] https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/nzg9y4/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_june_14_2021/ [archived]
    14 Jun 2021 · The Court says no dice on either, on different grounds. The first fails on a number of grounds, firstly because the Court doesn't see a $0 ...
  9. [REDDIT] https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/9gyel0/what_the_worst_not_very_wellknown_supreme_court/ [archived]
    The government doesn't get the majority. So it ends up in the Supreme Court. In short, Congress had the authority to void any treaty with the Indians because it had sole authority to deal with the Indians, doing so was a political question meaning it is not something the courts c…
  10. [REDDIT] https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dek023/cmv_people_shouldnt_vote_for_donald_trump_in_the/ [archived]
    12 Jun 2024 · A House investigation, a Senate investigation, a DOJ investigation, various courts, etc all have examined this extensively and found the results ...
  11. [REDDIT] https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/1drubcw/why_can_something_be_deemed_unconstitutional_in/ [archived]
    States in that jurisdiction with similar or identical rules will still have their laws in tact until a lawsuit is brought, and a federal district court would be required to hold that state law unconstitutional under precedence. But other courts of appeals in the country are not b…
  12. [REDDIT] https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/1bnokh3/an_informed_guess_at_the_sb1160_gun_registration/
    25 Mar 2024 · An informed guess at the SB1160 (gun registration) fees: $250 start, $125 annual renewal · Comments Section.
  13. [REDDIT] https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1af6lp7/a_visualization_of_the_94_federal_district_courts/
    3.3M subscribers in the MapPorn community. High quality images of maps.
  14. [WEB] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf [archived]
    22 Jun 2018 · Wireless carriers produced CSLI for petitioner Timothy Carpenter's phone, and the Government was able to obtain 12,898 location points.
  15. [WEB] https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Which-Court-is-Binding-HandoutFinal.pdf [archived]
    That is, a federal Supreme Court decision is binding on all lower federal courts, both circuit courts of appeals and district courts. A federal circuit decision is binding on all federal district courts within its circuit, but not federal courts in other circuits.
  16. [WEB] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-402/ [archived]
    The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the acquisition of Carpenter's cell-site records was a Fourth Amendment search.

CROSS-REFERENCE

Government Purchase of Commercial Location Data: Warrantless Surveillance Via Data Broker Loophole — SUPPORTS (OUTGOING)GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF CO…Post-Carpenter v. US Rulings on Government Purchase of Commercial Location DataPOST-CARPENTER V. US RULING…THIS FILESUPPORTS