Your financial records have no Fourth Amendment protections

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

John Adams was watching from the back of the room when James Otis Jr. argued against British writs of assistance in 1761. These were general warrants giving royal officials unlimited authority to search colonial homes and businesses without naming what they were seeking. Adams later called it the first scene of the first act of American opposition to arbitrary government.

Otis lost the case, but he won something more durable: the Fourth Amendment is his argument, encoded into law.

The amendment’s language is deliberate: Persons, houses, papers, and effects are not to be searched or seized without a warrant based on probable cause, issued with particularity. The Founders chose the word “papers” in particular because correspondence, account books, and financial ledgers formed the infrastructure of private life that crown officials had been seizing through general warrants.

The protection that the framers wrote into our Constitution was not a general right to privacy. Rather, it was a specific warrant requirement for specific records — the same records that federal agencies can now reach through administrative subpoenas that require no judge’s signature.

This is because of two key and relatively recent Supreme Court decisions. U.S. v. Miller in 1976 and Smith v. Maryland in 1979 replaced the Fourth Amendment’s requirement with a doctrine the Founders never intended. They established that information voluntarily shared with a third party loses Fourth Amendment protection.

In Miller, the court held that a bank depositor has no reasonable expectation of privacy in financial records conveyed to the bank. In Smith, the Court extended that reasoning to numbers dialed from one’s phone. In the digital economy, where every financial relationship runs through institutional intermediaries, the practical consequence is that you have surrendered to the government warrant-free access to your entire financial life.

The “voluntary” framing mischaracterizes the situation. Americans don’t have a choice of participating in a financial system that doesn’t require institutional intermediaries. No such system exists.

Lord Camden’s 1765 ruling in Entick v. Carrington established what the Founders codified: A document’s constitutional protection follows its owner, not its custodian. The third-party doctrine substitutes a theory of government access that the Fourth Amendment was written specifically to foreclose.

Riley v. California in 2014 and Carpenter v. United States in 2018 recently carved out exceptions. There are now warrant requirements for cell phones and historical location data. But both decisions explicitly preserved Miller and Smith. Financial records effectively remain outside the Fourth Amendment.

So your phone now carries more constitutional protection than your brokerage account or your tax returns. That’s not by constitutional design — that is five decades of judicial deference to a doctrine the text doesn’t support.

To add some contemporary relevance, consider the FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation, opened April 2022. It produced 197 subpoenas targeting at least 430 Republican organizations and individuals. It swept up phone metadata from nine sitting U.S. senators and one House member and resulted in the physical seizure of Rep. Scott Perry’s (R-Pa.) cell phone.

Verizon complied with Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenas; AT&T refused and produced nothing. None of the metadata collection required a warrant because the third-party doctrine covered it.

Federal agencies are also purchasing financial and location data from commercial brokers directly — a parallel warrant-free channel that Arctic Frost used alongside its subpoena authority.

Mind you, this is a structural, constitutional problem, not a partisan one. The government’s warrant-free reach into financial records can run equally against progressive activists and conservative donors. The constitutional question is not whether Arctic Frost was politically motivated: That’s a separate argument. The question is whether Americans’ financial lives should remain open to any federal agency that issues the right administrative form, without any judicial review.

Four reforms would restore the protection the Founders wrote. First, there should be a warrant standard for administrative subpoenas seeking personal financial records. Second, there should be mandatory notice to account holders, absent specific judicial authorization for secrecy. Third, we need a ban on government purchase of financial data from commercial brokers as a warrant workaround. Finally, we need updated protections for digital records that reflect modern data scope, rather than the paper ledgers of 1978.

House Republicans introduced the SECURE Data Act and GUARD Financial Data Act on April 22, 2026. Neither closes the financial-records gap entirely, but both at least confirm that Congress sees the problem.

The Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986, already imposes warrant requirements on some electronic communications content held by third parties. The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 governs bank record access but hasn’t been strengthened in nearly fifty years.

None of these reforms requires a constitutional amendment. All of them require Congress to treat the gap between the amendment’s text and its current enforcement as a problem worth closing.

I advise families with high net-worth. Without exception, their financial lives run through dozens of institutional third parties, which hold records carrying no meaningful Fourth Amendment protection from a properly formatted administrative demand.

But the Founders put “papers” in the Fourth Amendment because financial records were then and are now the infrastructure of private life. The warrant requirement is still in the text, and Congress still has the authority to restore it.

Jay Rogers is President of Alpha Strategies and a financial professional with more than 30 years of experience in private equity, private credit, hedge funds, and wealth management.