That Fourth Amendment test, which the Court invented in 1967, has no basis in the Constitution's text or history.

the Court should ditch those precedents, which he says are indefensible in theory and unworkable in practice.

when confronted with coercive prosecutorial tactics designed to induce defendants to take plea deals, the Court has often condoned those practices or let them pass in silence.

Today, independent agencies do not just exercise executive law-enforcement powers.

Congress has also delegated to them vast legislative and judicial powers.

As I see it, Mr. Chatrie's Location History data qualifies as his personal property.

We do not question that sometimes an individual's unlawful use of marijuana (or any other controlled substance) may render him a danger to others.

The habitual drunkard laws on which the government relies here differ dramatically from [the federal] unlawful user provision on every single metric the government invites us to consider.

They targeted different kinds of people, did so for different purposes, and operated in different ways.

The government that kind of 'broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun,' would risk allowing it to 'quickly swallow' the Second Amendment.

Apart from pointing to habitual drunkard laws, the government has not even attempted to prove that any other specific historical principle might justify its prosecution in this case.