January, 26 2022, 02:51pm EDT

Dozens of Consumer-Advocacy, Media-Justice and Privacy-Rights Groups Call on Congress to Kickstart the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act
WASHINGTON
On Tuesday, nearly 50 consumer-advocacy, media-justice and privacy-rights groups, including the ACLU, the Brennan Center for Justice, Demand Progress and Free Press Action, called on the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to conduct hearings on the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act.
The bipartisan legislation would stop the harmful and unconstitutional sales of personal information to government authorities without a legal warrant. Data merchants frequently sell to intelligence and law enforcement agencies the data of tens of millions of people in the United States, claiming that federal statutes don't specifically prohibit the use of digital apps and brokers.
"As a result, data from apps most Americans routinely use are open to warrantless examination by the government," reads the letter the groups sent to Democratic and Republican committee leadership. "We believe hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Judiciary Committee in early 2022 -- underscoring these disturbing facts and perhaps uncovering new ones -- would inform the American public and create the momentum needed to turn your bill into law."
The Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act, introduced in 2021, would close the legal loophole and prevent intelligence agencies from using private data purchases to circumvent the legal regime Congress put in place to prevent mass surveillance of people in the United States.
"There is no clause in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution that says warrants are needed to search and seize our personal effects, except when government decides to buy them," said former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Bob Goodlatte, who now is a senior policy advisor for the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability. "And yet that's what intelligence and law enforcement agencies are doing -- buying our most sensitive and personal information from data brokers. We need a hearing to reveal to Congress and the American people the extent to which our information is being accessed by law enforcement and intelligence agencies at will."
"The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement protects not only our privacy, but our freedoms of association, religion and belief," said Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice. "The government should not be able to buy its way around these fundamental rights. We call on the leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to hold hearings to expose the government's activities and advance legislative solutions, such as the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act."
"There's no reason information scavenged by data brokers should be treated differently under the Fourth Amendment," said Free Press Action's Nora Benavidez. "The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act closes that legal loophole and ensures that law enforcement and intelligence agencies can't do an end run around the Constitution to get to your data. Enacting this legislation would stop this flagrant abuse of our privacy and shut down a clandestine business sector that trades away our essential rights for profit."
"Data brokers are exploiting a loophole to sell sensitive information to the government, including information protected by the Fourth Amendment, in massive quantities," said Sean Vitka, senior policy counsel at Demand Progress. "This is an outrageous violation of the spirit and letter of the law, and it demands urgent action by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Failure to act is unconscionable: The longer Congress waits, the stronger and more dangerous this industry will become."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
Billionaire-Funded Pro-Collins PAC Drops Nearly $2 Million on Ad Attacking Platner
"They’re getting scared," Platner said. "And they should be."
Apr 27, 2026
A super political action committee supporting Sen. Susan Collins, backed by Wall Street and tech billionaires, has dropped nearly $2 million on attack ads targeting Democratic primary frontrunner Graham Platner.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings noting the Pine Tree Results PAC’s expenditures on April 22 were first reported on Sunday by Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim, who noted the firm’s support from a who’s who of elite financial benefactors, many of whom have close ties to the Trump administration.
Previous FEC filings reveal that Pine Tree Results has received $2 million from Stephen Schwarzman, CEO of the private equity firm Blackstone. Infamously, those funds came right before Collins cast a decisive vote to advance President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which included major tax breaks for private equity while slashing more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and federal food assistance.
Another major Pine Tree backer is Paul Singer, CEO of the hedge fund Elliott Management and a leading Trump donor, who has been identified as one of the biggest beneficiaries of Trump's overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Aside from Wall Street, the pro-Collins super PAC has also received $100,000 from Alex Karp, the CEO of the intelligence giant Palantir, which has provided the Trump administration with intelligence and surveillance software used by the US government to target immigrants for deportation and by the US and Israeli militaries.
The company recently published what many called a “manifesto” based on a new book by Karp, which argued for mandatory national military service and the advancement of autonomous killer robot technology while railing against cultural “pluralism.”
These are just some of the donors backing the new round of ads aimed at taking down Platner before the June 9 primary, where polls show him with a commanding lead over Democratic Gov. Janet Mills on the back of a campaign laser-focused on attacking billionaire power, championing progressive policies like a tax on extreme wealth and Medicare for All, and decrying Trump's aggressive foreign wars and attacks on the rights of people across the US.
As independent journalist Nathan Bernard explained, Pine Tree Results' new ad against Platner "is essentially the same attack ad Janet Mills ran [last month], which backfired badly."
It seizes on a comment made by Platner in a 2013 Reddit thread in which he said both victims and perpetrators of sexual assaults while under the influence of alcohol need to "take some responsibility" for their actions. Platner has since disavowed these and other questionable comments he made around the time, saying, "I did not know what the fuck I was talking about.”
The ad also claims that Platner "bragged about having a Nazi tattoo on his chest." Platner said he got the tattoo, a skull and crossbones resembling an insignia worn by the SS, in Croatia in 2007 while serving as a young Marine. He said at the time he was unaware of the symbol's connotations, believing it to be merely a “terrifying-looking skull and crossbones." He has since had the tattoo covered.
While Mills and other liberal opponents of Platner have suggested these controversies may make him less electable in the critical general election—which could prove decisive as Democrats seek to retake the Senate in November—Platner has consistently polled further ahead of Collins in general election polls than Mills, with one from early April showing him ahead by 11 points over the five-term incumbent, and has rallied crowds at standing-room only events across the state.
"I thought Collins was relishing running against Platner," wrote American Prospect editor David Dayen in a sarcastic social media post. "Why wouldn't she save this until after the primary?"
Platner, who has raised three times more than Mills and Collins combined from small donors, decried the fact that the new ads against him were funded “by 12 billionaires” using “all out of state money” and “not a single dollar coming from Maine.”
However, he seemed unfazed by the attack.
"They’re getting scared," he said. "And they should be."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Anyone Still Arguing Trump's Iran War Isn't Illegal Will Soon Be Out of Excuses: Legal Scholar
“The courts should simply hold that the War Powers Resolution requires the president to end our involvement in the war with Iran unless and until Congress authorizes it."
Apr 27, 2026
In late February, President Donald Trump launched a war of choice with Iran that many legal scholars have called illegal for numerous reasons, including that the president received no authorization from Congress or the United Nations Security Council before carrying out the attack, and that the invasion was not started in self-defense.
Defenders of the war have nevertheless claimed that Trump's decision to attack Iran is covered by the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which allows the president to deploy military forces for up to 60 days so long as he provides the US Congress with notification within 48 hours of launching strikes.
With the Iran war set to surpass the 60-day threshold by the end of this week, legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, argued in an editorial published by The New York Times on Monday that time is about to run out for defenders of the deeply unpopular war.
The US attacks will “clearly be illegal” should they continue without any congressional approval, said Chemerinsky.
Chemerinsky predicted that Trump and Republicans in Congress will shrug off this deadline, even though the War Powers Resolution "doesn't come with a check box for opting out."
This would then put the onus on courts to declare the war illegal and demand its end, Chemerinsky continued, although he acknowledged that the chances of a court enforcing the War Powers Resolution were slim, given a long history of courts dismissing claims brought under the 1973 law.
Even so, he encouraged opponents of the war to file lawsuits aimed at ending the conflict, given that the alternative is to simply grant the president unchecked powers to launch wars of choice.
"The courts should simply hold that the War Powers Resolution requires the president to end our involvement in the war with Iran unless and until Congress authorizes it," Chemerinsky concluded. "This shouldn’t be—and isn't—different than any other injunction on any administration to comply with the law. Mr. Trump might disregard such an order. But that isn’t a reason for the federal judiciary to abandon its duty to enforce the law."
Congressional Democrats have repeatedly forced votes on war powers resolutions that would end the Iran War, but each time have fallen short of the votes needed in the Republican-controlled Congress.
An April 16 war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives came one vote short of passing, with Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) joining nearly all Republicans in voting against it.
Chemerinsky pointed to the unwillingness of Congress to take responsibility for war powers as a reason for courts to intervene, and warned of dire consequences should they fail to declare the war illegal.
"In the face of congressional inaction, and without judicial enforcement, there are realistically no checks on the president’s ability to unilaterally wage war," wrote Chemerinsky. "If the federal judiciary, up to and including the Supreme Court, won’t uphold its responsibility here, it will nullify our Constitution’s design that two branches of government should be involved when our country goes to war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'These Are Murders': Trump Killing Spree Hits At Least 185
"The International Criminal Court is prosecuting the former Philippines president [Rodrigo] Duterte for the exact same thing."
Apr 27, 2026
The murder spree being conducted by the US government under the direction of President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth climbed to an estimated 185 people on Sunday after the Pentagon announced another bombing of a boat it claims was trafficking illegal narcotics.
"On April 26, at the direction of SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations," the US military stated in a social media post. "Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations. Three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action. No US military forces were harmed."
While no specific evidence was provided publicly to back up the claims made by SOUTHCOM about Sunday's strike, human rights experts and legal scholars have made clear for months that such lethal operations at sea—whether or not those targeted are in fact trafficking drugs—have no justification under international maritime law and that the extrajudicial killings should be seen for what they are: cold-blooded murder.
Footage released by SOUTHCOM showed the moment the vessel was attacked, and those aboard were killed:
On April 26, at the direction of #SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations. Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known… pic.twitter.com/br2znnUM1x
— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) April 27, 2026
In a separate attack on April 24, also carried out by SOUTHCOM, two other individuals were murdered when their boat, filmed stationary in the ocean, was bombed by US forces:
On April 24, at the direction of #SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations. Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known… pic.twitter.com/FRHwqXsHm2
— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) April 25, 2026
Nick Turse, an investigative journalist with The Intercept, which has been tracking the attacks, said the latest pair of attacks means five "more people have been murdered since Friday," bringing the total—since the attacks began last year—up to nearly 190 people.
"The Trump administration keeps summarily executing, rather than arresting, drug suspects," said Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch and now a visiting professor at Princeton University, on Sunday. "These are murders. The International Criminal Court is prosecuting the former Philippines president [Rodrigo] Duterte for the exact same thing."
Last week, the ICC's pre-trial chamber unanimously confirmed all the charges levied against Duterte, paving the way for his trial to begin. Duterte, who served as mayor of the city of Davao and later as the nation's president, is accused of crimes against humanity over his violent crackdown on drugs that included extrajudicial killings and other brutal tactics by police and security forces.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


