Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) have introduced the Surveillance Accountability Act, a bill that feels like someone took the Fourth Amendment and actually meant it.
The legislation aims “to ensure that all searches that significantly impinge on the privacy or security of a person require a warrant based on probable cause” and to create “a right of action for violations of Fourth Amendment rights.” That covers the kinds of searches federal agencies currently conduct without judicial oversight: pulling your financial records from banks, requesting your browsing history from ISPs, buying your location data from brokers, and harvesting your biometric information from surveillance cameras.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
The bill lands in the middle of a brutal Congressional fight over FISA Section 702, the surveillance authority that currently lets the FBI search Americans’ communications.
Reclaim Your Digital Freedom.
Get unfiltered coverage of surveillance, censorship, and the technology threatening your civil liberties.
The new legislation goes much further than the various reform bills circulating around that debate. Where the SAFE Act and the Government Surveillance Reform Act target specific loopholes in FISA, the Surveillance Accountability Act tries to close all of them at once by rewriting the baseline rule: if the government wants your data, it needs a judge’s permission.
More: How Your Weather App Became a Surveillance Machine — and How to Escape It
The main part of the bill adds a new Section 3119 to Title 18 of the US Code with a simple default: “no search may be conducted without a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
The bill defines “search” broadly enough to actually matter, covering “any government-initiated act that intrudes upon an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” whether through “human, digital, or automated means.” It explicitly lists what falls under warrant protection: “communications,” “associations,” “employment,” “social media usage,” “internet usage,” “financial transactions,” and “travel.”
The bill goes further, extending protection to “the acquisition and analysis of any data, metadata, or information pertaining to a person’s digital or physical life,” including “geolocation,” “personal device activity,” “biometric identifiers,” and “behavioral signals data.”
The government is already collecting and analyzing patterns of how you act online, and Massie and Boebert’s bill is the first piece of legislation to name it directly and bring it under warrant protection.
The Third-Party Doctrine Problem
The most significant provision attacks the legal fiction that has allowed warrantless government surveillance to flourish for nearly fifty years. The third-party doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Maryland (1979), holds that you lose your Fourth Amendment protection over any information you voluntarily share with a third party, like a phone company or a bank.
The logic made a certain kind of sense when it meant the government could see which phone numbers you dialed. It makes no sense at all when every aspect of modern life generates data that passes through corporate servers.
The Supreme Court acknowledged as much in Carpenter v. United States (2018), ruling that cell phone location data requires a warrant even though it’s held by wireless carriers. But Carpenter was deliberately narrow. The Court didn’t overturn the third-party doctrine. It just said that this particular type of data, cell site location information, was too revealing to leave unprotected.
The new bill does what Carpenter didn’t. It creates a blanket presumption of privacy for all data held by third parties. The bill states that “the government shall not access any data, metadata, or personal information held by a third party, including financial services providers, telecommunication service providers, internet service providers, cloud storage companies, or data brokers, without a valid warrant, regardless of whether the third party consents or cooperates.”
Your bank can’t waive your constitutional rights for you. Your phone company can’t either.
More: Data Brokers, Deadly Consequences, and the Wild West of Information Trade
The bill goes further still: “No contractual agreement between a user and a third party may be interpreted as waiving the government’s warrant requirement for access to the data of that user, unless such waiver is knowing, voluntary, and explicit.” This kills the argument that by agreeing to a terms of service, you’ve somehow consented to government surveillance. That argument has always been absurd, and the bill finally says so in statute.
Facial Recognition and License Plate Readers
The bill’s limitations section targets two surveillance technologies that have spread across American cities with almost no legal oversight: facial recognition systems and automated license plate readers.
The bill prohibits the “warrantless collection, retention, querying, or analysis” of data gathered from people simply going about their lives in public. That prohibition covers “biometric data, including facial images, faceprints, gait, voice recognition, or other unique physical identifiers, obtained through facial recognition systems or comparable surveillance technologies.”
It also covers “license plate images, vehicle metadata, or vehicle movement patterns obtained through automated license plate readers or similar systems.”
Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies have been building vast databases of facial recognition and license plate data for years, treating the fact that you walked down a public street or drove on a public road as blanket permission to track your movements indefinitely. The bill says that’s not how it works. Being in public doesn’t mean consenting to biometric surveillance.
Suing the Government When It Violates Your Rights
The second half of the bill creates something that currently doesn’t exist in federal law: a clear right of action for Fourth Amendment violations by federal employees. The bill’s language is direct: “Every person, including a Federal employee, who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of the United States, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Fourth Amendment, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
Courts can award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, which means the threat of litigation carries financial weight.
This is significant because of the Supreme Court’s steady erosion of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), the case that originally allowed citizens to sue federal officials for constitutional violations. The Court has spent the last decade and a half narrowing Bivens to the point where it barely functions. Massie’s bill creates a statutory alternative that doesn’t depend on judicial willingness to recognize new causes of action.
The right of action covers every federal employee except the President and Vice President. That’s a wide net. An NSA analyst who runs a warrantless query on your communications, an FBI agent who buys your location data from a broker, an ICE officer who accesses your records through a Section 702 backdoor search, all of them could face personal liability.
The Political Context
Massie has been fighting this battle for over a decade. He sponsored an amendment in 2014 to stop warrantless backdoor searches of Americans’ online data, which passed the House 293 to 123. He introduced the Surveillance State Repeal Act in 2015, seeking to repeal the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act entirely. He’s called for Edward Snowden to be pardoned and for former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to be prosecuted for lying to Congress about the NSA’s phone metadata program.
The Surveillance Accountability Act arrives at a moment when the politics of surveillance are stranger than they’ve been in years. Massie has publicly demanded “No FISA reauthorization without a warrant requirement for US citizens!” on social media, attaching screenshots of past statements from President Trump, Vice President Vance, and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan warning about FISA abuses.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus, 98 House Democrats, has formally voted to oppose any Section 702 reauthorization without dramatic reforms. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton is pushing an 18-month clean extension with no reforms at all, arguing that the war with Iran makes this the wrong time to weaken intelligence capabilities.
The warrant amendment that would have required court approval for FBI searches of Section 702 data lost by a single vote in 2024, a 212-212 tie in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson cast the tiebreaker against it.
“The Bill of Rights is not a suggestion, and Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches conducted by the government are not optional,” said Massie. “The Surveillance Accountability Act requires government employees to first obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching Americans’ personal information even if the information sought is stored on a phone, in the cloud, or held by a third party. Warrantless searches are unconstitutional, and this does not change when the data the government seeks is in digital formats or held by a third party.”
“For years, the federal government has treated the Fourth Amendment like a suggestion. They’ve built a massive surveillance machine that tracks, scans, and spies on law-abiding Americans without a warrant, without probable cause, and without any accountability. Enough is enough,” said Rep. Lauren Boebert.“The Surveillance Accountability Act puts the Constitution back in charge. It protects every American from an out-of-control federal government that thinks it owns your data, your movements, and your life. This is a true bipartisan issue for anyone who still believes in limited government and individual liberty.”
Massie’s bill goes beyond Section 702. It rewrites the entire framework, or tries to. The chances of the Surveillance Accountability Act passing in its current form are, being realistic, very low. The intelligence community will fight it. The national security establishment will call it dangerous. The administration has already signaled it wants a clean FISA extension with no conditions.
But the bill is a marker. It describes what actual Fourth Amendment compliance would look like if Congress took the text of the Constitution at face value. Warrants for searches. Probable cause. Judicial oversight. No exceptions for data that happens to sit on a corporate server. No loopholes for biometric surveillance conducted in plain view. And real consequences, financial ones, for agents who ignore the rules.
The gap between what the Surveillance Accountability Act proposes and what Congress is actually likely to pass tells you everything about how far the federal government has drifted from the privacy protections Americans were supposedly guaranteed 235 years ago.
