Supreme Court Releases Key Decisions in Recent Term

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decisions on presidential power to federalize the National Guard and Fourth Amendment protections for digital location data could have implications for how federal and local law enforcement operate within Virginia.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court concluded its recent term with several notable decisions, including rulings concerning presidential power, the application of equal protection, and Fourth Amendment privacy. While some high-profile outcomes, such as those related to tariffs, presidential removal power, birthright citizenship, and restrictions on transgender athletes, generally aligned with previous indications, other cases presented different results. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion in *Mullin v. Doe*, a case involving the suspension of Temporary Protected Status for individuals from Haiti and Syria. Thomas argued that the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause applies only to states, not the federal government. He wrote, “The Constitution has only one Equal Protection Clause, and it applies only to the ‘State[s],’ not the Federal Government.” Thomas asserted that the Court erred in *Bolling v. Sharpe* (1954) by applying equal protection to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, determined that overt racism was not present and that an alternative explanation for the president's actions existed. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, citing statements by then-President Trump. In *Trump v. Illinois*, decided on December 23, 2025, the Supreme Court limited a president's authority to federalize a state's National Guard. The 6-3 ruling focused on the interpretation of two federal statutes. The Court concluded that 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) allows a president to federalize a state's Guard only if the United States military's regular forces are unable to execute federal laws. The Court stated, “We conclude that the term ‘regular forces’ in §12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States military.” The ruling further stipulated that federalizing the Guard requires both the military's legal authorization for domestic law enforcement under statutes like the Posse Comitatus Act and the military's inadequacy to perform the function. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. Another ruling, *Chatrie v. United States*, addressed the scope of Fourth Amendment protections in the digital age. The case involved police obtaining geofence data from Google following a bank robbery, which identified Okello Chatrie. The district court denied Chatrie’s motion to suppress the evidence, and he was convicted. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 6-3 majority opinion, which held that accessing a cell-phone user's Location History constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. The Court clarified, “When the government ‘accesses historical cell phone location information’—Location History as much as CSLI [cell-site location information]—it ‘conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment.’” The Court remanded the case to address warrant sufficiency and the applicability of the exclusionary rule. This decision affirmed and extended the Court’s 2018 ruling in *Carpenter v. United States*, which determined that obtaining extensive cellular location information requires a warrant. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her dissent, indicated no disagreement with *Carpenter*. Justice Alito, in his dissent in *Chatrie*, characterized the ruling as an advisory opinion and noted its potential impact on Fourth Amendment doctrine.