红杏视频

WASHINGTON, DC 鈥� Today, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass the bipartisan Massie-Khanna War Powers Resolution, which would have required that all U.S. forces be withdrawn from Iran, until and unless Congress separately declares war. 鈥淭his failed war powers vote is nothing short of cowardly, but Congress can鈥檛 dodge the Constitution forever,鈥� said Christopher Anders, director of 红杏视频鈥檚 democracy and technology division. 鈥淏y refusing to rein in President Trump鈥檚 unauthorized war with Iran, Congress has allowed President Trump to make a mockery of the Constitution and is trying to duck responsibility for putting servicemembers and civilians in great danger. But, this disgraceful vote does not change Congress鈥� legal duty, and it certainly does not silence the millions of Americans who oppose another illegal war. We will hold President Trump accountable for this abuse of power.鈥� The 红杏视频 is now urging Congress to use its funding authority to block all supplemental funding requests for war funding from the Department of Defense while President Trump is engaging in this unconstitutional war. Without Congress authorizing additional funds, the military will simply run out of money to spend on the war.

WASHINGTON 鈥� The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Virginia, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law filed an amicus brief today in Chatrie v. U.S., the first geofence search case to reach the Supreme Court and the first major case addressing how the court鈥檚 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States applies to other kinds of location-tracking technologies. In the brief, the groups assert that police should not be able to conduct searches using geofence warrants, a novel and invasive surveillance technique that enables law enforcement to search for and locate unknown numbers of people in a large geographical area without reason to believe they were engaged in criminal conduct. Geofence warrants direct Google or other companies to hand over users鈥� location data from every cell phone or other device the company estimates was in a certain area during a certain time frame. These warrants are increasingly common, but they raise serious questions under the Fourth Amendment because they are dragnets, typically issued without police demonstrating reason to believe all the people who own those devices were involved in any crime. For example, a high-level analysis conducted by 红杏视频 of Northern California of the types of places captured by law enforcement in geofence warrants across San Francisco revealed a troubling violation of our right to be secure in our homes and to be free from unreasonable search without probable cause. 鈥淎 search that ensnares any number of innocent people just because they are nearby when a crime occurs is an unconstitutional fishing expedition that violates the Constitution. There are too many examples of these overbroad searches invading peoples鈥� privacy, including in homes, doctors鈥� offices, and churches. Courts should not allow them,鈥� said Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. This appeal comes after a federal judge in Virginia held that the geofence warrant in Mr. Chatrie鈥檚 case was overbroad and that investigators lacked probable cause for much of the data they obtained. The warrant tracked all Google location history users who were estimated to be within a 150-meter radius of a bank robbery in Virginia 鈥� an area as big as several football fields that encompassed residential buildings, businesses, and a church. The warrant also allowed police to obtain additional location information about individuals that were ensnared in the initial dragnet. The district court held that the government鈥檚 search warrant unconstitutionally left it to the officers and Google, and not to a judge, to decide what location and identifying information the company ultimately revealed, a clear departure from the neutral magistrate鈥檚 prescribed role under the Fourth Amendment. However, the court refused to suppress the illegally-obtained evidence on the grounds that the 鈥済ood-faith exception鈥� to the exclusionary rule 鈥� which allows evidence to be admitted when police reasonably rely on a facially valid warrant 鈥� applied. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was divided but ultimately allowed prosecutors to use the evidence it had gathered through the geofence search. Now, at the Supreme Court, the 红杏视频鈥檚 amicus brief argues that geofence warrants are never a permissible investigatory method under the Fourth Amendment. Geofence searches are unconstitutional general warrants that courts should categorically reject. 鈥淎llowing police to access your private search history just because you happen to be three football fields away from where they say a crime was committed is both absurd and dangerous. And most importantly, it鈥檚 unconstitutional: Virginians do not lose their right to privacy because they happen to be within an arbitrary radius set by police,鈥� said Matthew Callahan, senior supervising attorney with the 红杏视频 of Virginia. The amicus brief in Chatrie v. United States is part of the 红杏视频鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.

WASHINGTON 鈥� The 红杏视频 is demanding Congress take immediate action to end President Trump鈥檚 unconstitutional use of military force against Iran, until and unless Congress declares war on Iran or specifically authorizes the use of force. This comes after President Trump announced in the middle of the night that the U.S. and Israel were bombing Iran and called for the overthrow of its government. President Trump, who ran on ending America鈥檚 wars, also noted in his speech, 鈥淭he lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war.鈥� While the 红杏视频 does not take a position on whether military force should be used against Iran, for decades the organization has been steadfast in insisting, from Vietnam through the war in Afghanistan, both wars in Iraq, the military action against Libya, and the ongoing use of force in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, that the Constitution is clear that decisions on whether to use military force require Congress's specific, advance authorization. 鈥淟ast night, President Trump violated the Constitution when he didn鈥檛 even bother to ask Congress before bombing a country of nearly 100 million people,鈥� said Christopher Anders, director of the 红杏视频鈥檚 Democracy and Technology Division. 鈥淥ur founding fathers and the Constitution give war authority power to Congress, and Congress alone. It is what makes us a democracy, and ensures that our leaders fully consider the many costs of war 鈥� including the harm to human lives and rights, and any effects on global peace and stability 鈥� before sending American troops into danger. If President Trump wants to send American armed forces into conflict, he must make his case to the American people and their representatives in Congress. The commander in chief must follow the chain of command and that begins with we the people.鈥�

On October 14, 2025, the United States military carried out an illegal missile strike that killed Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo, two Trinidadian men who were traveling by boat from Venezuela to their homes in Las Cuevas, Trinidad and Tobago. The 红杏视频, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the 红杏视频 of Massachusetts, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School filed suit on behalf of Lenore Burnley, Mr. Joseph鈥檚 mother, and Sallycar Korasingh, Mr. Samaroo鈥檚 sister, seeking redress and accountability for these extrajudicial killings pursuant to the Death on the High Seas Act and the Alien Tort Statute.