I don't think it is irrelevant at all. The problem though is that the court actually ruled officially in Jones on very narrow grounds which are inapplicable here. That 5 justices went further and said that general surveillance could reach 4th Amendment problems if large enough in scale, and that this would require rethinking existing precedent throws a real monkey wrench in things but it is premature to say the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue.
Comments
I don't think it is irrelevant at all. The problem though is that the court actually ruled officially in Jones on very narrow grounds which are inapplicable here. That 5 justices went further and said that general surveillance could reach 4th Amendment problems if large enough in scale, and that this would require rethinking existing precedent throws a real monkey wrench in things but it is premature to say the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue.