Surveillance Without Judges
Palantir has received at least $113 million in federal contracts since 2017 for its data analytics platforms used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). No definitive judicial rulings have specifically applied the individualized suspicion requirement from Carpenter v. United States to ICE’s AI-driven aggregation of multiple types of third-party data to identify enforcement targets, meaning the agency operates with powerful surveillance technology in a legal grey area, largely unchecked by the Supreme Court’s privacy precedents.
The Data Vortex
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is constructing an expansive data network, driven by artificial intelligence, to track individuals. This system pulls information from Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, commercial databases, and even cell phone location information. A training document detailing Palantir software confirms it allowed ICE agents to search SEVIS, which "at the time contained millions of records 'of non-immigrant students, exchange visitors and their dependents' dating back to 2016." This vast collection is now consolidating, with the 2025 integration of Social Security Administration, IRS, and Department of Homeland Security records under Palantir contracts. The result is a single dataset potentially containing financial records, tax history, immigration status, health data, employment history, and identity information for practically every American.
Private Payouts, Public Blind Spots
This surveillance infrastructure is not built by the government alone. ICE relies heavily on private contractors such as Palantir and GEO Group, with contracts potentially totaling $1.2 billion. These companies are incentivized for speed, not accuracy. ICE has contracted with thirteen companies for "skip tracing," which involves locating individuals, and these companies receive bonuses for quickly verifying locations. This payment structure clearly prioritizes rapid results over ensuring legal compliance or the accuracy of the information used to track people. The proprietary nature of the algorithms deployed by these private firms further complicates oversight, making it difficult for the public to scrutinize potential errors or abuses.
Circumventing Carpenter
Among the data sources ICE exploits, cell phone location data presents the greatest risk to individual privacy and due process. The Supreme Court's Carpenter v. United States decision established that extended cell-site location tracking requires a warrant, recognizing that such data reveals the most intimate details of a person's life. Yet, ICE's acquisition of this sensitive data, often through third-party companies, is argued by some legal scholars to constitute a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment, effectively circumventing the Carpenter ruling. The purchase of this data by government agencies is currently a subject of legal debate regarding whether it qualifies as state action requiring a warrant.
The Code's Inherent Risk
Even without complete public access to ICE's algorithmic data, research methods are sufficient to establish the likelihood of algorithmic bias in these systems. Experts consistently note that AI, built on existing data, can show and amplify societal biases. While definitive, quantifiable statistical disparities in targeting between racial or ethnic groups have not been released, the risk of discriminatory outcomes remains. Legal challenges to government AI systems based on algorithmic bias are increasingly successful in achieving transparency and modifications, often by showing unequal outcomes for different groups or through expert bias audits.
No Recourse
For individuals incorrectly identified or targeted by ICE’s AI tracking systems, effective legal recourse is largely unavailable. The high evidentiary burden of proving causation, combined with the opaque nature of these proprietary algorithms, creates a nearly insurmountable barrier. While individuals can pursue claims of unlawful search and seizure, the lack of transparency regarding the algorithms and data sources used makes proving a violation exceedingly difficult. This leaves those caught in the system with little avenue for redress.
The Unseen Frontier
The legal system has not yet caught up to the technological capabilities ICE now wields, leaving the scope of Fourth Amendment protections largely undefined and individuals vulnerable in the face of AI-driven data aggregation.
Comments ()