Published July 14, 2026 at 3:40 PM ET · Updated July 14, 2026 at 10:24 PM ET
Documents allege Jack Smith misled Congress over surveillance of lawmakers
2 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
Documents made public by Senator Chuck Grassley allege that Special Counsel Jack Smith surveilled members of Congress by reading their text messages. The documents further allege that Smith misled Congress about the extent of the surveillance.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 1 d ago, when The Federalist reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 21 hr ago from PJ Media. Verification tier: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Under Riley v. Wurie, searching digital information on a cell phone generally requires a warrant because phones hold the privacies of life. Katz v. United States held that what a person seeks to preserve as private is protected even without physical trespass. Reading lawmakers' text messages without a warrant would therefore be a Fourth Amendment search.
Riley v. Wurie, No. 13-212) 573 U.S. 373 (2014)
Vote: 9-0 · Opinion: Roberts (C.J.)
Police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an arrestee. The search-incident-to-arrest exception (Chimel/Robinson) rests on officer safety and evidence preservation, and neither justifies rummaging through digital data. Cell phones are 'not just another technological convenience' — they hold 'the privacies of life' in immense, qualitatively different quantity.
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Vote: 7-1 · Opinion: Stewart
Attaching an electronic listening/recording device to the outside of a public telephone booth to capture the user's end of calls is a Fourth Amendment search and seizure, even without physical trespass into the booth. 'The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.' What a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in a publicly accessible area, may be. The surveillance here — though narrowly targeted and likely approvable by a magistrate — was unconstitutional because no warrant was obtained.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
