Michigan Attorney General Leads Bipartisan Coalition on Geofence Warrants and Election Lawsuits

Michigan Attorney General Leads Bipartisan Coalition on Geofence Warrants and Election Lawsuits

LANSING — Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in filing amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court on two critical legal challenges: defending the use of geofence warrants by law enforcement and challenging a federal executive order on mail-in ballots.

The Supreme Court case on geofence warrants, Chatrie v. United States (Docket No. 25-112), is scheduled for oral argument on April 27, 2026. Michigan's Attorney General Office joined Iowa in leading a bipartisan multistate coalition of 32 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of properly drawn geofence warrants.

Geofence Warrants Case

Geofence warrants allow law enforcement to compel technology companies like Google to provide location data for all devices that were within a specified geographic area during a particular time period. These warrants have become increasingly important in modern investigations, particularly in tracking suspects who may have used multiple devices.

According to the Michigan Attorney General's amicus brief, the case raises significant Fourth Amendment questions that require careful consideration by the Supreme Court. The brief argues that a properly drawn geofence warrant can satisfy Fourth Amendment protections while still providing law enforcement with necessary investigative tools.

The legal challenge centers on two main issues. First, whether obtaining location history records constitutes a Fourth Amendment "search" of a person's "papers." Second, assuming a warrant was needed, whether the warrant itself was properly drawn and satisfied constitutional requirements.

"The challenge of new technology is a recurring theme in Fourth Amendment law," noted legal scholar Orin S. Kerr, who submitted an amicus brief on the case. "This case raises a host of new and important questions, and this brief hopes to help frame the issues and provide directions for answering them."

The Michigan Attorney General's brief emphasizes that the Fourth Amendment does not present an all-or-nothing choice between zero protection and absolute protection. Instead, the constitutional framework provides means to draft lawful warrants that respect privacy rights while enabling legitimate law enforcement needs.

Multi-Stage Warrant Questions

The geofence warrant in this case involves what lawyers call a "multi-stage" warrant. The warrant has two distinct steps, each requiring different types of data and different levels of specificity. The Michigan brief addresses the particularity requirements of both steps, arguing that the warrant was sufficiently narrow in both time and space for Step 1.

However, the constitutionality of the warrant at Step 2 remains uncertain. Legal experts note that it is not clear whether the Fourth Amendment allows multi-stage warrants, and the particularity of Step 2 is debatable. Nevertheless, the Michigan Attorney General's brief suggests that the Court might resolve the case by focusing primarily on the warrant issues, as these involve fewer contested questions and have a more complete factual record.

Mail-In Ballot Lawsuit

In addition to the geofence warrants case, Attorney General Nessel has also joined a coalition of 24 attorneys general and governors in filing a lawsuit challenging President Trump's March 31, 2026 Executive Order on mail-in ballots.

The executive order bars the U.S. Postal Service from delivering absentee ballots to anyone not on a nationally compiled list of absentee voters. This restriction directly impacts over 2.2 million Michiganders who used mail-in voting in the 2024 election.

In a press release, Attorney General Nessel referred to Trump's EO as interference in state elections because it restricts "voter eligibility" and compiles a "federally authorized list of absentee voters."

"Mail-in ballots are a safe and secure voting option," Nessel stated. "President Trump is working unilaterally to make it harder to vote from home for single moms, seniors, and the military serving overseas."

The legal challenge is based on the argument that the executive order violates the constitutional principle of state control over elections. In 2018, Michigan voters approved expanded absentee voting through a statewide ballot measure, and Michigan courts have upheld the state's authority to determine election procedures.

Bipartisan Coalition Approach

The use of bipartisan coalitions in these legal challenges reflects a strategic approach to defending constitutional rights and state sovereignty. The geofence warrants coalition includes attorneys general from both parties, united by the belief that properly drawn warrants can satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements.

Similarly, the mail-in ballot coalition brings together attorneys general and governors who share concerns about federal overreach in state elections. This approach allows for broader legal arguments and demonstrates that concerns about federal interference transcend partisan lines.

Legal Arguments in Geofence Case

The Michigan Attorney General's amicus brief in the geofence warrants case makes several key legal arguments:

1. Voluntary Opt-In to Location History: The brief argues that users who voluntarily opt in to have Google create and store their Location History records do not have Fourth Amendment protections under the third-party doctrine as established in Carpenter v. United States (2018).

1. Properly Drawn Warrants: The brief contends that a properly drawn geofence warrant can satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements, emphasizing that the Fourth Amendment provides means to draft lawful warrants that respect privacy rights while enabling legitimate law enforcement needs.

1. Narrow Scope: The brief argues that the warrant in this case was properly drawn as to Step 1 because it was sufficiently narrow in both time and space.

1. Multi-Stage Warrant Issues: The brief acknowledges that the constitutionality of the warrant at Step 2 is uncertain, noting that it is not clear whether the Fourth Amendment allows multi-stage warrants and that the particularity of Step 2 is debatable.

Implications for Law Enforcement

The outcome of the geofence warrants case will have significant implications for law enforcement investigations across the country. If the Supreme Court rules that properly drawn geofence warrants satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements, it would provide law enforcement with a powerful tool for tracking suspects while maintaining constitutional protections.

Conversely, if the Court finds that multi-stage warrants or the particularity requirements of Step 2 violate the Fourth Amendment, it would require law enforcement to draft warrants differently and potentially limit the scope of geofence investigations.

State Sovereignty in Elections

The mail-in ballot lawsuit raises important questions about the balance between federal authority and state control over elections. The argument that states have the constitutional authority to determine their own election procedures has deep roots in American constitutional law, dating back to the Founding Era.

The 2018 Michigan ballot measure on expanded absentee voting, which was approved by Michigan voters, provides a specific example of the state's authority to make election decisions. Courts have consistently held that state election officials have broad discretion in determining election procedures, subject to certain federal constitutional requirements.

The coalition of attorneys general and governors challenging the executive order represents a significant effort to defend state sovereignty and limit federal overreach in state elections.

Looking Ahead

The Supreme Court's oral arguments on April 27 in the geofence warrants case will be closely watched by legal scholars, law enforcement officials, and privacy advocates. The outcome could shape how law enforcement uses technology in investigations and how courts balance privacy rights with law enforcement needs.

Similarly, the mail-in ballot lawsuit will have significant implications for state election procedures across the country, potentially setting important legal precedents about the balance between federal authority and state control over elections.

Attorney General Nessel's use of bipartisan coalitions in these legal challenges demonstrates a strategic approach to defending constitutional rights and state sovereignty, bringing together attorneys general from both parties who share concerns about federal overreach and the importance of properly drawn warrants.

This article reports on recent legal activities by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and bipartisan coalitions of attorneys general on issues affecting law enforcement and state elections.