Published July 14, 2026 at 6:50 PM ET · Updated July 14, 2026 at 10:24 PM ET
Grassley says Jack Smith's team surveilled 44 lawmakers' texts and misled Congress
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.
Senator Chuck Grassley says Special Counsel Jack Smith's team surveilled the text messages of 44 members of Congress and built cases against them. Grassley alleges the team misled Congress about the surveillance.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 22 hr ago, when ZeroHedge 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
Katz v. United States held that electronically capturing what a person keeps private is a Fourth Amendment search even without physical trespass; the Amendment protects people not places. Riley v. Wurie barred warrantless searches of cell phone contents, calling such devices holders of the privacies of life. Reading the text messages of members of Congress without a warrant would therefore be a Fourth Amendment search.
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.
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.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
