Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf
Page Number: 98.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

27 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

now  think  that  the  Act  is  inadequate  or  needs  updating, 
they  can  turn  to  their  elected  representatives  to  adopt 
more  protective  provisions.    Because  the  collection  and 
storage  of  cell-site  records  affects  nearly  every  American, 
it  is  unlikely  that  the  question  whether  the  current  law 
requires strengthening will escape Congress’s notice.   

Legislation is much preferable to the development of an
entirely new body of Fourth Amendment caselaw for many
reasons, including the enormous complexity of the subject, 
the  need  to  respond  to  rapidly  changing  technology,  and
the  Fourth  Amendment’s  limited  scope.  The  Fourth 
Amendment  restricts  the  conduct  of  the  Federal  Govern-
ment  and  the  States;  it  does  not  apply  to  private  actors. 
But  today,  some  of  the  greatest  threats  to  individual  pri-
vacy  may  come  from  powerful  private  companies  that 
collect and sometimes misuse vast quantities of data about 
the  lives  of  ordinary  Americans.    If  today’s  decision  en-
courages  the  public  to  think  that  this  Court  can  protect
them  from  this  looming  threat  to  their  privacy,  the  deci-
sion  will  mislead  as  well  as  disrupt.  And  if  holding  a 
provision  of  the  Stored  Communications  Act  to  be  uncon-
stitutional  dissuades  Congress  from  further  legislation  in
this  field,  the  goal  of  protecting  privacy  will  be  greatly 
disserved. 

The  desire  to  make  a  statement  about  privacy  in  the
digital  age  does  not  justify  the  consequences  that  today’s 
decision is likely to produce.