Your fact-checks will appear here
The constitutional amendment protecting against self-incrimination, and its application to compelled biometric unlocking and decryption.
Legal protections for refusing to identify oneself during a police stop are a patchwork of constitutional rules and state statutes: the Supreme Court has allowed some “stop-and-identify” laws while re...
Refusing to show identification to police on a public street produces different legal consequences depending on where the encounter occurs and whether the officer has lawfully detained the person; sev...
When agents seize a phone or laptop, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for searches of its contents in most circumstances, but modern devices and services create layered legal limits: courts hav...
A president who used the machinery of the Department of Justice to order prosecutions of political opponents would not stand beyond the Constitution: such conduct could violate the Fifth and Fourteent...
The Supreme Court’s core framework governing when citizens can be required to show identification to police flows from Terry v. Ohio, which authorizes brief stops on reasonable suspicion, and from Hii...
U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents retain core constitutional protections during public encounters with ICE: the rights to remain silent, to consult an attorney, and—subject to limits—to rec...
CBP and ICE operate under the longstanding “border search” exception, which generally permits warrantless searches of travelers and their belongings at ports of entry and similar locations, and agency...
Digital artifacts most exposed to Fourth Amendment suppression in online enticement prosecutions are those that flow from overbroad seizures, prolonged retention or searches beyond a warrant’s scope—e...
Between 2010 and 2014 local governments and sanctuary-minded jurisdictions pushed back on Secure Communities through a patchwork of legal and policy maneuvers — from formal “opt-out” requests and loca...