Journal of Law and Public Policy Blog

Bobbie Schermbeck

March 10^th, 2025, 49 days since President Trump took office for the second time. An overwhelming question has been on my mind since then: Why do people support him? I’m trying to separate this question from the black and white of Republican vs. Democrat. When people talk about America, the American Dream, and “how great” America is, it suggests we’re looking for a strong leader—someone who will guide America toward a brighter future, much like Reagan or Roosevelt did, at least by Republican standards. Yet, instead, we have a former reality TV star and felon. The connection to a strong America just isn’t there for me.

I studied psychology while in undergraduate school, so I looked for answers there. Following the Holocaust, several theorists thought prejudice might be pathological and searched for personality syndromes associated with it.[1] Theodor Adorno, one of the theorists who fled Nazi Germany, and his co-authors believed that the key to prejudice lay in the Authoritarian Personality.[2] Bob Altemeyer, a renowned psychologist in the area, focused most of his career on authoritarianism. He proposed that there were two characteristics that marked authoritarians and caused prejudice.[3] The first is their tendency to organize their world views as in-groups and out-groups.[4] The second is their self-righteousness, and that they will feel free to express prejudice against members of the out-groups who their authority figure has labeled immoral or a threat to their traditional values.[5]

Today, the research in this area reflects the political sphere, and two theories are associated with right-wing voters.  The first, Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), is defined as “a personality type that describes somebody who is naturally submissive to their authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior.”[6] Social Dominance Theory (SDO), the second, is a “model of the development and maintenance of social dominance and oppression that assumes societies minimize group conflict by creating consensus on ideologies that promote the superiority of one group over others.”[7]  These Ideologies promote or maintain group inequality and are tools that legitimize discrimination.[8] SDO is also used to reinforce hierarchical myths.[9] Both RWA and SDO are substantial predictors of intergroup prejudices.[10] Individuals who have higher levels of authoritarian traits are more likely to have negative views of minority groups, or those they consider the out-group.[11]

Of course, not all of Trump’s supporters are authoritarians or would rank highly on either scale. However, the degree to which authoritarian tendencies manifest in public life depends on whether society gives those views credibility.[12] That is where the “charismatic” leader comes in. Trump could teach a master class on how to cause civil unrest as he plays on both his voters’ fears and desires with almost an expert employment of dog-whistle politics. He either overtly or covertly gives his followers the credibility they seek regarding their outgroup beliefs.

Dog-whistle politics is a political ideology that suggests the use of coded messages that on their face are innoxious but to a follower is suggestive and will garner political support.[13] They appeal to specific audiences with the goal of inciting support or perpetuating divisive ideologies without directly stating them. For example, before the election, Trump’s Vice Presidential candidate said, “In two days, we are going to take out the trash in Washington, D.C., and the trash’s name is Kamala Harris.”[14]  While not overtly racist or sexist on the surface, an audience already predisposed to negative stereotypes about women and Black individuals will resonate with the message. A more covert example is the Trump Administration’s play on language like ‘hard work,’ which is used to uphold stereotypes that people create their own poverty because they are lazy and rely on government handouts.[15] On its face, his message may have a positive spin, but it subtly implies that people in poverty are undeserving of help. This is broadly appealing to those who believe in rugged individualism while stigmatizing others who rely on government assistance, particularly targeting marginalized communities. Dog-whistling can create a sense of solidarity or reinforce in-group/out-group dynamics among voters, which may explain why people are drawn to it–even if the rhetoric itself isn’t overtly aggressive–which plays well to the voters who do register highly on the authoritarian scale, as well asvoters who identify with the underlying messages. Of late, Trump has mostly left these veiled messages behind and moved for more a more openly bigoted rhetoric. The Trump Administration’s rhetoric is akin to populism. Populism is where a “charismatic leader” claims to be speaking for and to his people.[16] This leader will articulate his followers’ grievances in a way few other mainstream politicians are willing to do.[17] Trump has consistently positioned himself as a champion of the “common people” against a corrupt elite, including the media, politicians, and the “deep state,” a key aspect of populism. He has also framed his campaigns as anti-establishment, promising to “drain the swamp” and disrupt Washington’s entrenched political class. He appeals to his followers with inflammatory statements and frames himself as an outsider fighting against a corrupt elite.[18]

Here are a few examples of Trump’s rhetoric: When a white supremacist mob marched in Charlottesville in 2017 and chanted through the streets “Blacks will not replace us” and “Jews will not replace us”,[19] Trump came to their defense, saying, “there was blame on both sides…You had some very bad people in that group. You also had some very fine people on both sides.”[20] Another infamous example is asking the Proud Boys[21] to “stand back and stand by.”[22] Beyond these general expressions of bigotry, Trump’s rhetoric also targets specific groups, particularly immigrants, reinforcing his populist narrative with inflammatory and dehumanizing language. During his rallies for his first administration, he would often read lyrics from “The Snake”. He quotes “You knew damn well I was a snake before you let me in” to spin a negative light on immigrants who have come into this country.[23] He turns his followers against immigrants and anyone sympathetic to them by convincing them that outsiders are a mortal threat, a clear example of feeding into out-group dynamics.[24] “His voters are primed to accept anti-immigration rhetoric and to be frightened by it.”[25]  Ironically, a civil rights activist wrote “The Snake”, and his family is suing Trump for using the lyrics.[26] To cement the idea to his followers that immigrants are dangerous, he has likened them to murderers andanimals, said they had failed genes, and that they were all from “Shithole Countries”. During his latest campaign, he accused Haitian immigrants of “Eating the dogs.”[27]

This type of discourse is not new to him.[28] In 1973, the DOJ sued Trump for racial discrimination after his apartment manager admitted Trump told him not to rent to Black tenants.[29] In 1989, he continued by taking out an ad in a New York newspaper that called for the reinstatement of the death penalty.[30] The ad targeted the Central Park Five, a group of young Black boys wrongly accused of raping a woman in central park. DNA evidence exonerated all five men, and Trump refused to make an apology.[31] Trump even doubleddown just last year, saying the Central Park Fivehad killed the person attacked[32] It is likewise ironic Trump would claim to “stand up” for a woman who has been raped, given his own history of supporting or engaging in behavior that aligns with sexual harassment. With perhaps his most famous quote from 2005, “I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women—I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything…Grab them by the pussy.”[33] Trump’s ability to make such statements without consequence while holding our nation’s highest office validates his followers in holding or expressing the same harmful beliefs.

It is past supposition that Trump’s words are being seen by his followers as a call to do harm. In November 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center recorded 1,094 reports of incidents involving hate and harassment directed at women, Muslims, and other groups criticized by Trump.[34] In 2018, Cesar Sayoc sent 16 pipe bombs to journalists, prominent Democrats, and other public figures whom Trump had openly denounced.[35] During court proceedings, Sayoc’s lawyer said Trump’s rhetoric caused his client’s behavior.[36] By 2019, the Guardian identified 52 instances of violence or threats of violence carried out by Trump supporters “in the name of Trump.”[37] On January 6, 2021, a crowd of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, shouting threats against legislators opposing Trump and even members of his administration, including Vice President Mike Pence, whom they viewed as disloyal to Trump.[38] And in 2024, in the town of Springfield, Ohio, where he accused immigrants of eating dogs, there were bomb threats investigated by the FBI and white nationalist groups like the Proud Boys and the Ku Klux Klan marching the streets.[39] Trump’s campaigns have energized the racist right; “the most prominent U.S.-based white supremacist websites, the neo-Nazi Stormfront and The Daily Stormer, launched extensive online campaigns supporting Trump’s presidential bid, and both sites experienced dramatic increases in traffic.”[40]  Some studies have hypothesized that not only did his rhetoric throughout his first campaign create an uptick in hate crimes, but that his subsequent election validated those crimes to his followers.[41]

Going a step further, Trump has employed a very interesting scheme related to the media. He has created an enemy of the press by labeling all mainstream news outlets that say things he doesn’t like as “fake news.” This has not only created distrust in the media but has facilitated the spread of actual misinformation, encouraging his supporters to disregard factual reporting and accept his narrative instead. By attacking the credibility of outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and others, he undermined the media’s role as a check on political power, making it harder for the public to discern fact from fiction. But he also uses the media, especially social media, to allow for more widespread coverage of his ideals. Social media platforms, particularly Twitter (now X) and Truth Social, allowed him to bypass traditional media filters, speak directly to his followers, and spread his message without any editorial oversight. His tweets and rallies often sparked viral news cycles, amplifying his views and keeping his agenda at the forefront of public discussion. At the same time, this media manipulation created a fragmented landscape, where his supporters consumed news that reinforced their beliefs, while critics were painted as part of the “elite” media. In doing so, Trump has reshaped how political messaging is delivered, furthering polarization and making it difficult for people to agree on shared facts.

So, has Trump’s rise to power simply been a matter of him saying the right things to the right people? In many ways, it seems that way—Trump’s success appears to stem from his ability to tap into the emotions, frustrations, and fears of specific groups, speaking directly to their concerns in a way that resonates deeply with them. He has mastered the art of knowing which buttons to press to rally his base, often using language that stirs strong feelings without ever directly addressing the complexities of the issues at hand. It is chilling to consider how easily such rhetoric can sway people and shift political dynamics. After all, it only took Hitler 53 days to convince an entire nation, using similarly simplistic and emotionally charged rhetoric that capitalized on existing fears, economic turmoil, and a sense of national grievance to pass the Enabling Act.[42] While the comparison might seem extreme, the underlying tactics of appealing to baseless fears, creating scapegoats, and manipulating emotions are disturbingly similar, raising questions about how fragile public opinion can be when leaders know exactly what to say to exploit it.

Donald Trump’s discourse and political strategies illustrate the significant influence of language in shaping societal attitudes and behaviors. His use of dog-whistle politics and, increasingly, overtly divisive statements has not only fostered animosity toward marginalized groups but also amplified existing social and political divides. By framing certain groups as threats and embracing inflammatory discourse, Trump has empowered his supporters while leaving others alienated and vulnerable to harm. The real-world consequences of this rhetoric are difficult to ignore. These patterns raise important questions about the responsibilities of political leaders and the impact their words can have on a nation’s cohesion and moral fabric. As Trump’s influence continues to shape political discourse in the United States, how deeply these divisions will affect the country’s future is unknown. Understanding and addressing these dynamics may be critical to fostering a society that values inclusion, dialogue, and mutual respect over division and hostility. I am worried that this second term is validating his messaging, and the divide will grow so deep that we will not be able to cross over it again.

[1]S. Plous, The Psychology of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination: An Overview, Understanding Prejudice, https://secure.understandingprejudice.org/apa/english/page3.htm#:~:text=First%2C%20a%20politically%20conservative%20form,a%20central%20ingredient%20in%20prejudice.%20 (last visited Mar. 13, 2025).

[2] Id.

[3] B. E. Whitley, Jr., Right-wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, and Prejudice. 77 J. Personality & Soc. Psych. 1, 126–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.126

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Right Wing Authoritarianism, Scholarly Community Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28405 (last visited March 13, 2025). Not to be confused with left-wing authoritarians, who Altemeyer described as people who submit to authorities who want to overthrow the establishment, versus right-wing authoritarians, who submit to the already established authority figure.

[7] Social Dominance Theory (SDT), Am. Psych. Ass’n, https://dictionary.apa.org/social-dominance-theory (last visited Mar. 13, 2025).

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10]Amélie Bret et al., Right Wing Authoritarianism Is Associated with Race Bias in Face Detection, PLoS One (July 10, 2017), https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179894.

[11] Id.

[12] Authoritarianism Among Trump Voters, Monmouth Univ., https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_authpanel_011921/ (last visited Mar. 13, 2025).

[13] Ian Olasov, Offensive political dog whistles: You know them when you hear them. Or do you?, Vox, (Nov. 7, 2016) https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/7/13549154/dog-whistles-campaign-racism.

[14] Savannah Kuchar, Vance calls Harris ‘trash’ after deriding her for Biden’s garbage gaffe, USA Today, (Nov. 4, 2024), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/04/vance-garbage-criticism-harris-trash/76053720007/.

[15] Thomas Beaumont & Matt Brown, Trump invokes racist tropes, calling Harris ‘lazy as hell’ and ‘slow’, Associated Press, (Oct. 22, 2024), https://whyy.org/articles/trump-racist-tropes-lazy-slow-harris/.

[16] P. Cushman, Resentment, online living, and sacred soldiers in Trumpist America: Toward understanding the emergence of a populist cult., 44 J. Theoretical & Phil. Psych. 2, 80–94 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000259.

[17] Id.

[18] His rhetoric is, however, different from the polices he enacts and the actions he takes, he has surrounded himself with the billionaire elites and while he has “drained the swamp” its of people who are anti-trump not anti-establishment.

[19] Trump lashes out at ‘alt-left in Charlottesville ‘fine people on both sides’, ABC News, (Aug. 15, 2017), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-lashes-alt-left-charlottesville-fine-people-sides/story?id=49235032.

[20] Id.

[21] Proud Boys, ADL, https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/proud-boys (last visited Mar. 15, 2025). The proud boys are a far-right, neo-Nazi group who are associated with violence and the attack on the capital on January 6^th.

[22] Rosie Gray, Trump Defends White-Nationalist Protesters: ‘Some Very Fine People on Both Sides’, Congress, (Apr. 15, 2017), https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116973/documents/HHRG-118-ED00-20240417-SD006.pdf.

[23] Donald Trump Reads “The Snake” song lyrics at a Florida Rally, Dangerous Speech Project (Dec. 24, 2021), https://www.dangerousspeech.org/libraries/donald-trump-reads-the-snake-song-lyrics-at-florida-rally [hereinafter Dangerous].

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Karen Pinchin, Insects, floods, and “The Snake”: What Trumps use of Metaphors Revels, PBS, (Oct. 22, 2019) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/insects-floods-and-the-snake-what-trumps-use-of-metaphors-reveals/.  Oscar Brown Jr.’s family is suing the Trump administration for using the lyrics, and Maggie Brown, his daughter, is quoted saying “My first feeling was that my dad’s name doesn’t belong in Trump’s mouth,… It reminded me of a lynching scene, getting folks all riled up, about to kill this [black person]. I hated the idea of him using Oscar’s words to create such a platform.”

[27] Merlyn Thomas & Mike Wendling, Trump repeats baseless claim about Haitian immigrants eating pets, BBC (Sept. 15, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c77l28myezko.

[28] David Leonhardt & Ian Prasad Philbrick, Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List, Updated, N.Y. Times, (Jan. 15, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html. A compiled list of some of Trump’s racist remarks.

[29] Trump calls Harris ‘lazy’, invokes racist trope against Black people, Business Standard (Oct. 23, 2024), https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/trump-calls-harris-lazy-invokes-racist-trope-against-black-people-124102300039_1.html.

[30] Jan Ransom, Trump Will Not Apologize for Calling for Death Penalty of Central Park Five, N.Y. Times (June 18, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyregion/central-park-five-trump.html.

[31] Id.

[32] Jaclyn Diaz, The Central Park Five are suing Trump over Philly debate comments, NPR (Oct. 21, 2024), https://www.npr.org/2024/09/11/nx-s1-5108632/central-park-five-trump-debate.

[33] Jane C. Timm, Trump on Hot Mic: ‘When you’re a star… you can do anything’ to women, NBC News (Oct. 7, 2016), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-hot-mic-when-you-re-star-you-can-do-n662116.

[34] Dangerous, supra note 23.

[35] Id.

[36] Id.

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] William Brangham & Mary Fecteau, How life in Springfield has been disrupted by lies about its Haitian community, PBS News (Sep. 17, 2024), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-life-in-springfield-has-been-disrupted-by-lies-about-its-haitian-community.

[40] Brett A. Barnett, The Trump Effect: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Racist Right’s Internet Rhetoric, 14 J. Hate Stud.1, 5 (Feb. 27, 2019), DOI: 10.33972/jhs.125, https://repository.gonzaga.edu/jhs/vol14/iss1/5/

[41] Griffin S. Edwards & Stephen Rushin, The Effect of President Trump’s Election on Hate Crimes (Jan. 14, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3102652.

[42] The Enabling Act: Even more power for Hitler, Anne Frank House, https://www.annefrank.org/en/timeline/48/the-enabling-act-even-more-power-for-hitler/#:~:text=On%2023%20March%201933%2C%20the,a%20period%20of%20four%20years (last visited Mar. 15, 2025). The Act allowed Hitler to enact new laws without interference from the president or the Reichstag (German parliament) for a period of four years. Similarly, on Truth Social, Trump said, “He Who saves the country, does not violate any law”. This implies that he believes he, too, is above the law.

Katie Herchenroder, Trump Alludes the Law does not Apply to him if he “saves” the Country, Vanity Fair (Feb. 16, 2025), https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-implies-above-the-law-to-save-the-country?srsltid=AfmBOop6eBeTk6jjk_lU4Y6-lEil5e3-YWYFRRn5lQApOnScqTyIapxK.

Michaela Messier

What once seemed like science fiction, or a Silicon Valley experiment, is now a real part of how governments operate. Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is already reshaping the way public institutions make decisions that affect millions of people. From predictive policing to benefits eligibility, AI systems are now embedded in the public sector, where their impact on civil liberties, due process, and equality under the law is profound and often blurred. As these systems proliferate, public policy must catch up. Not just to regulate private sector innovation, but to ensure government uses of AI reflect democratic values and constitutional principles. In recent years, public agencies at the federal, state, and local levels have increasingly adopted algorithmic decision-making tools. These tools are used for everything from identifying children at risk of abuse, to optimizing traffic flow, to predicting the likelihood of someone committing a future crime. In theory, these systems promise efficiency, consistency, and objectivity. In practice, however, they often entrench existing inequalities, lack transparency, and frequently lack comprehensive mechanisms for accountability.

For instance, the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (“COMPAS”) algorithm used in criminal sentencing was found to exhibit significant racial bias. A 2016 investigation by ProPublic revealed COMPAS falsely scored Black defendants as higher risk nearly twice as often than white defendants with similar profiles.[1] Despite being used to inform life-altering judicial decisions, the algorithm’s internal workings are proprietary and shielded from scrutiny, raising due process concerns.[2] This evidence shows that, when flawed, these systems do not just cause inconvenience. They can cost people their freedom. Unlike private uses of AI, such as product recommendations or targeted ads, the stakes in government decision-making are uniquely high. Government action carries the weight of law. A person denied housing benefits by an AI tool doesn’t just lose out on a consumer good. It is possible they may lose the roof over their head. Constitutional protections, such as the right to due process and equal protection, carry distinct implications in the public sector that are not present in private, commercial settings.

The Supreme Court has long held that when the government deprives someone of liberty or property interest, due process requires “the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”[3] When the decisionmaker is not required to explain their conclusion or provide access to the basis for that decision, meaningful review becomes impossible.[4] That concern is magnified when decisions stem from blurred and complex AI systems. Courts have shown increasing concern about governmental reliance on third-party algorithms without sufficient transparency. In Loomis v. Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the use of the COMPAS algorithm in sentencing, but the case sparked widespread legal debate about whether secret algorithms can meet constitutional standards.[5] Although SCOTUS denied certiorari, the case remains a flashpoint in the discussion over due process and algorithmic accountability.

One of the foundational challenges in regulating AI is the “black box” problem. Many AI systems are so complex that even their developers struggle to explain how they reach certain conclusions. When deployed by the government, this complexity becomes a legal and ethical minefield. How can someone appeal a denial of services if they cannot understand the logic that led to the decision? And how can an ordinary citizen be expected to understand such logic when the developers themselves may not even be able to? This has prompted calls for “algorithmic explainability” in public administration. While perfect transparency may not be feasible for every technical detail, policy should mandate that automated systems affecting rights and benefits come with clear, accessible explanations that allow affected individuals to understand, and more importantly, challenge decisions.

The U.S. Constitution does not recognize a “right to explanation” per se, but due process arguably requires a minimally intelligible account of how and why a decision was made.[6] Courts and legislatures should act accordingly, developing standards for procedural fairness that reflect the realities of automated governance. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) provides limited safeguards in this area.[7] In the American context, procedural due process provides the best doctrinal hook. Courts should expand the Matthews v. Eldridge balancing test to account for algorithmic opacity as a significant risk of erroneous deprivation.[8]

Another key reform is requiring Algorithmic Impact Assessments (“AIAs”), modeled after environmental or fiscal impact assessments. These would compel agencies to evaluate the risks and benefits of an AI system before implementation and regularly thereafter. An AIA could include an equity analysis, an audit of potential biases, and a public comment process. Some jurisdictions are already experimenting with this. For example, New York City has established an Office of Algorithmic Accountability.[9] Similarly, the federal Office of Management and Budget released guidance in 2023 urging agencies to incorporate AI risk management strategies and public input.[10] However, these efforts remain voluntary or fragmented. It’s time to move beyond voluntary frameworks. Congress should enact legislation mandating AIAs for any federal agency system that affects individual rights or welfare. States and municipalities should follow suit, creating uniform standards and independent oversight bodies.

Perhaps the most fundamental issue is who gets to decide how AI is used in the public realm. Many of today’s systems are procured from private vendors with little public input or debate. This is particularly troubling given the potentially transformative power of these tools. Democratic legitimacy requires that policies affecting people’s lives be shaped through inclusive and deliberative processes. At a minimum, agencies should be required to notify the public when adopting new AI systems, solicit community feedback, and disclose relevant documentation. Participatory governance is not only good policy, but also necessary to fend against abuse and error. Policies should empower affected communities, particularly marginalized populations who are often disproportionately harmed by automated systems. This includes funding for civil society groups to engage in oversight, legal aid for those harmed by algorithmic decisions, and community representation in AI review boards.[11]

AI in the public sector is not inherently harmful. When designed with care and deployed with oversight, it can improve service delivery, reduce human error, and allocate resources more efficiently. But these benefits will only be realized if public policy steps up to meet the challenge. A comprehensive regulatory framework tailored to the realities of government use, one that centers transparency, accountability, equity, and democratic participation, is necessary. The alternative, a future where inscrutable machines silently shape who gets what from the state, is not just unwise. It is fundamentally undemocratic.

[1] Julia Angwin et al., Machine Bias, ProPublica (May 2023, 2016), https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.

[2] Loomis v. Wisconsin, 881 N.W.2d 749, 761-62 (Wis. 2016).

[3] Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976).

[4] Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970).

[5]  Loomis, 881 N.W.2d at 761.

[6] Margot E. Kaminski, The Right to Explanation, Explained, 34 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 189 (2019).

[7]  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), art. 22, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1.

[8] Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.

[9] N.Y.C Local Law No. 49 (2018).

[10] Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence, M-23-18 (2023).

[11] Virginia Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (2018).

Elena Senftner

A tariff is a tax on imported products.[1] If a tariff is placed on imported goods, the importing country must pay the United States (“U.S”) Customs and Border Protection to bring the foreign product into the U.S..[2] In practice, this means importing goods into the U.S will generally cost more. For example, if a buyer imports a product without a tariff, they would only need to pay for the product and shipping fees.[3] However, if a buyer imports a product with a tariff, they must pay for the product, shipping fees, and the tariff itself. [4]The increased cost of importing is likely to be passed on to customers as foreign importers experience higher costs. Consequently, foreign importers may look to buy goods locally instead.[5]

However, the option for U.S. foreign importers to look internally for products is quite limited. The U.S. relies on foreign exports for most of the products sold within the country.[6] In 1934, the U.S. began the process of opening world markets and expanding trade, which played an important role in American prosperity.[7] Since the post-1950 period, the U.S. economy has transitioned from a manufacturing economy to a service economy dominated by highly skilled workers. [8] By the 2000s, nearly 80 percent of the American workforce was in the service sector.[9] From 1970 to the present, U.S. manufacturing jobs have steadily decreased, with countries like China filling the manufacturing void by producing goods at a cheaper rate.[10] As it stands, the U.S. relies on global markets for goods and raw material procurement.[11] The U.S.’s major global trading partners include Canada, Mexico, China, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea, Brazil, India, and Taiwan.[12] Notably, Canada, Mexico, and the United States have engaged in robust trade agreements for decades.[13]According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the move toward a service-based economy has increased American incomes by nine percent due to the expansion of global trade.[14]

The Obama administration worked to open and maintain global trade relations.[15] The administration prioritized increasing global trade by negotiating agreements and strengthening ties with foreign nations.[16] Citing empirical research, the administration focused on decreasing tariffs between nations with which the United States trades to promote global trade.[17] The main goal was to keep the U.S. economy open to other countries while giving businesses economic momentum to grow and create jobs, which, in theory, would help expand the middle class in the United States.[18]

Conversely, when President Trump took office, his rhetoric and approach were much less concerned with relationships and connections between countries.[19] From 2016 to 2020, President Trump’s administration adopted a more isolationist stance, with the stated goal of putting “America First.” President Trump imposed strict economic sanctions on foreign nations and withdrew from several Obama-era negotiated deals, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.[20] President Trump also took a strong stance against China. For instance 2018, President Trump placed a 25% tariff on roughly $50 billion in Chinese goods.[21] He also criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, arguing that it unfairly disadvantaged Americans.[22] President Trump renegotiated NAFTA, resulting in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which aimed to create a more balanced trade approach.[23]

The Biden administration reprioritized relationships with South Korea and Japan after Trump’s first term.[24] The administration paused steel and aluminum tariffs placed on the European Union and instead opted for an EU quota system. Biden also chose to keep Trump’s USMCA but emphasized the importance of close ties with the United States’ neighbors to the north and south.[25] Notably, the Biden administration retained the tariffs President Trump imposed on China and even increased them, citing that they helped reduce China’s corrupt trade practices.[26]

President Trump’s second term poses a much harsher threat to nearly all foreign exporters of goods to the U.S. Before his inauguration, President Trump stated that he planned to impose 10-20 percent tariffs on all nations.[27] On the campaign trail, he addressed trade between the U.S. and EU member states, saying, “They don’t take our cars. They don’t take our farm products. They sell millions and millions of cars in the United States. No, no, no, they will have to pay a big price.”[28]As of now, a few months into his term, President Trump has not officially placed tariffs on any U.S. imports from the EU. However, he told reporters that he plans to impose a 25% tariff on goods made in the EU.[29] This trade aggression against the EU, combined with President Trump’s de-prioritization of defending Ukraine against Russia’s invasion, could significantly disrupt the nearly $1 trillion traded annually between the U.S. and the EU.[30]

Seemingly dismantling the long-standing trade agreement with the United States’ oldest and most reliable ally, Trump has also imposed a 25% tariff on Canadian exports, citing border issues and fentanyl distribution into the U.S.[31] These claims lack merit. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, less than 1% of all fentanyl seized in the U.S. comes from Canada.[32] Furthermore, Canada has responded to President Trump’s request for stricter border control; on December 17, 2024, Canada announced a $1.3 billion investment plan to bolster its border security.[33] The Canadian government highlighted how devastating this tariff would be economically.[34] Canada is the top customer of U.S. goods and services, and every day, over $2.5 billion worth of goods and services cross the border.[35]Additionally, Canada is the only U.S. trade partner with which the U.S. has a trade surplus.[36] In response to President Trump’s tariffs, Canada has announced retaliatory tariffs against U.S. goods. Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly stated:

Today, the United States has chosen to pursue a harmful course of action that threatens the prosperity of both our nations. Canada stands firm in defending our economy, workers, and businesses against these unjustified tariffs. We are announcing a robust response of $155 billion and remain prepared to take additional measures as needed.[37]

In addition to imposing tariffs on Canada, President Trump has placed 25% tariffs on Mexico, citing similar concerns regarding fentanyl and immigration. [38] Like Canada, this will significantly impact both the Mexican and American economies.[39] American automobile prices will rise, millions of jobs will be negatively affected, and inflation will increase. [40] All of this negatively impacts American consumers and citizens.[41] By and large, Americans have benefited from the free trade flow between the U.S. and Mexico. Mexico is one of the U.S.’s “most valued partners, with a 2,000-mile shared border containing 47 active land ports of entry and a shared history of deep cultural and economic ties spanning over 200 years of diplomatic relations.”[42] Mexico has responded to these tariffs with retaliatory measures, increasing costs for American businesses and consumers.[43]

In a White House paper written by President Trump’s executive team, there is little data or explanation as to how these tariffs will lower immigration or decrease fentanyl-related deaths.[44] This paper does not address President Trump’s current plans for tariffs against China, which is a separate and complex issue. However, as it stands, President Trump’s tariffs threaten to upend decades of economic growth, strain U.S. alliances, and drive-up costs for American consumers. His aggressive trade war with key partners like Canada, Mexico, and the EU risks job losses, inflation, and economic instability—all without clear benefits. While past administrations prioritized trade to strengthen the economy, President Trump’s policies prioritize isolation and disruption, leaving American businesses and workers to bear the consequences.

[1] June Kim, How Tariffs Work, N.Y. Times (Feb. 12, 2025) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/business/economy/what-are-tariffs.html.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] See Top Trading Partners – January 2017, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html.

[7] Office of the United States Trade Representative, Economy and Trade, https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/economy-trade#:~:text=America%20is%20the%20world%27s%20largest,the%20development%20of%20American%20prosperity.

[8] Francisco J. Bureau & Joseph P. Kabuki, The Rise of the Service Economy, 102 Am. Econ. Rev. 2540, 2540 (2012).

[9] Id.

[10] Ruth Strachan & Sebastian Shegadi, Who killed U.S.? Investment Monitor (May 21, 2021), https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/manufacturing/who-killed-us-manufacturing/?cf-view.

[11] The Economic Benefits of U.S. Trade, May 2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_trade_report_final_non-embargoed_v2.pdf

[12] Alan Kronenberg & Jaclyn Jeffery-Wiensky, As Tariff Loom, Which Countries Are America’s Biggest Trade Partners, U.S. News, (December 3, 2024) https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/which-countries-are-the-biggest-u-s-trade-partners.

[13] See North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

[14] Office of the United States Trade Representative, supra note 8.

[15] The Economic Benefits of U.S. Trade, Executive Office of the President of the United States, (May, 2015) https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_trade_report_final_non-embargoed_v2.pdf.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Samantha Carl-Yoder et al., A First Look at the Second Trump Administration’s National Security and Foreign Policy, Brownstein Client Alert, (Jan. 8, 2025) https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2025/a-first-look-at-the-second-trump-administration-s-national-security-and-foreign-policy.

[20] Id.

[21] Pamela Brown and Julia Horowitz, Trump Announces Tariff on $50 Billion Worth of Chinese Goods, CNN (June 15, 2018.) https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/14/news/economy/trump-china-tariffs/index.html.

[22] United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, Office of the United States Trade Representative, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement.

[23] Id.

[24] Cong. Rsch. Serv., U.S.-South Korea (KORUS) FTA and Bilateral Trade Relations (IF10733), Prepared by Liana Wong and Mark E. Manyin,  https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/IF10733.pdf (Nov. 14, 2024); Cong. Rsch. Serv., U.S.-Japan Trade Agreements and Negotiations (IF11120), Prepared by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs and Kyla H. Kitamura, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11120 (April 3, 2024).

[25] See Teri Schultz et al., How Europe is bracing for Trump’s second term as threat of tariffs loom, NPR (Dec. 1, 2024) https://www.npr.org/2024/12/01/nx-s1-5207944/how-europe-is-bracing-for-trumps-second-term-as-threat-of-tariffs-looms; see also Joshua P. Mektzer, The Importance of USMCA for the Biden administration’s economic and foreign policy, Brookings (Apr. 28, 2021) https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-importance-of-usmca-for-the-biden-administrations-economic-and-foreign-policy/.

[26] Ana Swanson & Jordyn Holman, Biden Administration Rachets Up Tariffs on Chinese Goods, N.Y. Times, (Sept. 13, 2024) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/13/us/politics/biden-tariffs-chinese-goods-clothing.html.

[27] Ryan Ermey, Trump’s tariff plan: why he’s pushing for them, and how they might end up raising prices, (Nov. 7, 2024) https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/business/money-report/trumps-tariff-plan-why-hes-pushing-for-them-and-how-they-might-end-up-raising-prices/5963832/.

[28] See Teri Schultz et al, supra note at 25.

[29] Michelle Fleury & Natalie Sherman, Trumps say 25% tariff on EU will be announced soon, B.B.C. (Feb. 27, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05ml3q2gn7o.

[30] European Union, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (last visited March 7, 2024) https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/european-union#:~:text=U.S.%20total%20goods%20trade%20with,(%242.6%20billion)%20from%202023.

[31] Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariff on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China, Feb.1,  2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/.

[32] Canada announces robust tariff package in response to unjustified U.S. tariffs. Department of Finance Canada. (2025, March) https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2025/03/canada-announces-robust-tariff-package-in-response-to-unjustified-us-t.

[33] Id.

[34] Id.

[35]  id.

[36] Id.

[37] Id.

[38] Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariff on Imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, supra note 32.

[39] Josha P. Meltzer, Trump’s 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico will be a blow to all 3 economics, Brookings, Feb. 3, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trumps-25-tariffs-on-canada-and-mexico-will-be-a-blow-to-all-3-economies/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20tariff%20of%2025,harms%20across%20the%20three%20countries.

[40] Id.

[41] Id.

[42] U.S. Department of State, U.S. Relations with Mexico, Jan. 20, 2025, https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-mexico/#:~:text=U.S.%2DMEXICO%20RELATIONS,200%20years%20of%20diplomatic%20relations.

[43] Farah Najjar, ‘Cool head’: How Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum got Trump to halt some tariffs, Mar. 6, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/6/cool-head-how-mexicos-claudia-sheinbaum-is-handling-trump-and-tariffs.

[44] Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariff on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China, supra note 32.

Nate Shoemaker

I. Introduction

DNA evidence is a powerful weapon in investigators’ and prosecutors’ arsenals in proving the identity of an individual suspected of committing a crime. It is powerful enough that the average true crime podcast or streaming enjoyer likely believes DNA evidence to be the final brick in the wall in proof beyond a reasonable doubt. DNA is not without flaws,[1] but is nonetheless very probative evidence.

There are two main kinds of DNA testing used in criminal investigations today: short tandem repeat (“STR”) and single-nucleotide polymorphism profiling (“SNP”). SNP profiling was recently at the forefront of legal proceedings against the man accused of killing four University of Idaho college students in November of 2022.[2] This is because the constitutionality of SNP profiling has been questioned with greater frequency, especially when it is used in a practice called investigative genetic genealogy (“IGG”).

II. Overview of STR and SNP Profiling[3]

DNA is highly complex, and DNA forensic testing even more so. STR analysis has been described as[4]

a cornerstone of modern forensic DNA analysis. This ingenious approach capitalizes on the short…repetitive sequences found scattered throughout the human genome, at specific locations of chromosomes…These sequences consist of a few nucleotide base pairs repeated in tandem, creating intricate patterns that vary from one individual to the next, except in cases of identical twins. By leveraging these variations, forensic experts can construct DNA profiles that are as distinctive as genetic fingerprints, enabling them to identify individuals with unprecedented accuracy.

STR analysis uses about twenty markers to create these distinctive profiles and is, by and large, the dominant form of DNA profiling in criminal investigation.[5] SNP analysis, on the other hand, “focuses on tiny variations at individual points in the DNA sequence. These variations…provide a detailed genetic roadmap. Unlike STRs, SNP profiles examine hundreds or even millions of data points.”[6] From these data points, SNP analysis can reveal “information about disease carrier status, predictive wellness, and cosmetic conditions, relying on hundreds of thousands of SNPs rather than the 13-20 STRs in the typical forensic profile. Compared to STRs, SNPs pack a lot more information, some of it potentially quite precious – in a profile.”[7]

III. Overview of IGG

As indicated above, STR profiling creates DNA profiles that are just like fingerprints. Like fingerprints, STR profiles must be directly compared to a known sample; this means that a suspect’s DNA profile taken from a crime scene would need to be contained in a database or compared against a DNA sample from someone already in custody on suspicion of the crime.[8] If there is no database match or there is no individual in custody to compare to, an STR profile is nearly useless. SNP profiling, on the other hand, can lead to identification of a suspect without a comparison sample through the practice of IGG. IGG involves the development of an SNP profile that is then “uploaded into a public, searchable genetic database,” such as MyFamilyTree DNA, GEDmatch, or 23andMe.[9] From there, investigators begin to build a family tree from the suspect SNP profile by comparing the similarities to other public profiles on the website; the closer the similarity between the suspect profile and the public profile, the closer the relation.[10] Once a suspect is identified through family tree analysis, investigators must obtain a DNA sample from that individual in order to conduct more conventional STR comparison.[11] In fact, the Department of Justice’s interim policy on IGG requires this step before an arrest can occur; IGG matches are not enough to warrant an arrest of a suspect on their own.[12] Thus, if the suspect does not consent to providing a DNA sample while out of custody, law enforcement will likely need to be creative in obtaining a sample.[13]

IV. IGG in Notable Cases

IGG requires a lot of time and resources to identify a possible suspect, including development of the initial SNP profile, extensive family tree building, and old-school policework in obtaining a sample from the identified suspect for STR comparison.[14] As such, use of IGG is typically limited to cold cases with little other investigative options.[15] The most prominent example of IGG is the Golden State Killer case, who terrorized California with a string of homicides and sexual assaults between 1974 and 1986.[16] SNP profiling and IGG ultimately led to the capture of a suspect in 2018, thirty-two years after his final recorded act of violence.[17]  As noted in footnote 13, IGG techniques resulted in the identification and capture of two cold case suspects decades after their respective crimes in our own backyard.[18] In Westrom, a woman was found dead in her Minneapolis apartment in 1993, having been stabbed sixty-five times in her chest and abdomen.[19] Possible DNA from the crime scene was found, but it did not lead to apprehension of any suspects.[20] IGG investigation of the sample began in 2018, and a suspect was identified and confirmed via STR profiling that same year.[21]

In Carbo, a woman was found sexually assaulted and strangled to death in her bed in the city of Chisholm in 1986.[22] Despite multiple sources of suspect DNA found at the scene, a suspect was not identified, and the case went cold.[23] IGG investigation began in 2019, and a suspect was ultimately identified, confirmed via STR profiling, and indicted for the homicide in 2022.[24]

Bucking the cold case trend is the Idaho college student quadruple homicide, where the suspect was identified via IGG techniques despite the underlying crime occurring only in 2022.[25] At the crime scene, investigators found a knife sheath that appeared to match the knife wounds suffered by the victims and located a DNA sample on the button. When STR profiling was conducted, there were no matches in any databases. Investigators thus turned to IGG and identified the defendant, who was later confirmed by STR profiling from his known sample. The defendant’s counsel filed a motion to suppress the DNA evidence and identification obtained through IGG, but this motion was summarily denied by an Ada County, Idaho judge on February 19, 2025.[26]

V. Constitutional Challenges to IGG

Among the challenges filed by the defendant’s counsel were that the SNP profiling was a Fourth Amendment violation.[27] Namely, the defendant argued that the advanced nature of SNP profiling and the sensitive data that it can identify about a person are private and subject to constitutional protection.[28]

In order to prevail on a Fourth Amendment challenge, a criminal defendant has to demonstrate that they had both a subjective expectation of privacy in the thing searched, and that the defendant’s expectation of privacy is objectively reasonable and readily recognized by society.[29] In all cases identified above—Westrom, Carbo, and the Idaho murders—the respective courts held that the defendant had no subjective expectation of privacy in the DNA left behind at their crime scenes. This conclusion was reached on grounds that the DNA was abandoned by each respective perpetrator and that each respective perpetrator thus had no reasonable expectation of privacy in testing done on that DNA.

Despite the denial of each motion, there is some momentum in recognizing a privacy interest in the detailed and “non-fingerprint” information revealed by SNP profiling, which is headlined by Supreme Court of Minnesota Justice Karl Procaccini’s concurrence in Carbo.[30] The Supreme Court of the United States has held that “if the seizure of an object does not violate an expectation of privacy, the subsequent testing of the object to reveal further information may yet implicate additional privacy interests.”[31] In this vein, although Skinner was not cited by Justice Procaccini, Justice Procaccini stated that the Carbo defendant retained an expectation of privacy in the genetic information revealed by SNP testing—even if the substance itself did not have such an expectation.[32]As noted, in the Idaho murders defendant’s case, defense counsel’s argument on the motion to suppress was based entirely on Justice Procaccini’s concurrence. Responding to this argument on an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in SNP profile information, the Idaho court stated the use of such information is critical in determining whether a constitutional violation occurred.[33] Although sensitive medical information was available to see from the SNP profile, such information was not used; the SNP profile was only used for identification.[34] Because the SNP profile was limited to identification, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.[35]

VI. Conclusion

As the Idaho college murder defendant’s case proceeds to trial, all DNA evidence will be admissible. If there is an expectation of privacy to be retained in SNP profiling, it is likely far from being judicially recognized if IGG investigation maintains the status quo. On the other hand, if an IGG investigation starts to wade into more sensitive medical information beyond what is necessary for identification, courts will be much more likely to step in. But until then, IGG is likely out of reach of the Fourth Amendment.

[1] DNA is such powerful evidence that it can be subject to false confidence. This was the case with Amanda Knox, an American student who was accused of killing her roommate in Italy. In a highly publicized legal saga, Knox was convicted, acquitted, re-convicted, and acquitted again based on minuscule amounts of her DNA found on a kitchen knife and her roommate’s bra. Colleen Barry & Frances D’Emilio, Italian Court Throws Out Knox Conviction Once and For All, AP News (Mar. 27, 2015), https://apnews.com/general-news-018d6a0ba12845aba0dfa91adbef968e.

[2] Stephen J. Beard, Jennifer Borresen & Dinah Voyles Pulver, Timeline of Idaho killings: When and Where the Victims Were Targeted, USA Today (Jan. 19, 2023), https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2023/01/14/idaho-college-murders-timeline/11020578002/.

[3] I cannot stress enough that this is a ten-hundred-thousand-foot overview of either kind of DNA testing; these descriptions are very reductive of the science and processes used to develop the respective types of profiles, but serve to illustrate how they each function with respect to the Fourth Amendment in a digestible way.

[4] A Comprehensive Exploration of STR Analysis, Simplyforensic (Aug. 17,2024), https://simplyforensic.com/a-comprehensive-exploration-of-str-analysis/.

[5] STR vs. SNP: Why Genetic Genealogy Relies on SNP Testing, BODE Technology, https://bodetech.com/str-vs-snp-why-genetic-genealogy-relies-on-snp-testing/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2025).

[6] Id.

[7] Erin Murphy, Law and Policy Oversight of Familial Searches in Recreational Genealogy Databases, 292 Forensic Sci. Int’l e5 (2018).

[8] BODE Technology, supra note 5.

[9] Leighton D’Antoni, Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG): A Guide for Prosecutors, The Texas Prosecutor: Texas Dist. & Cnty. Attorneys Ass’n, https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/investigative-genetic-genealogy-igg-a-guide-for-prosecutors/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2025). These websites give users the option of making their profiles available to criminal investigators for comparison. Law enforcement cannot access profiles for IGG if the user does not consent.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] United States Dep’t of Justice, Interim Policy: Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching (2019). As noted by D’Antoni, this 2019 “interim” policy does not appear to have been overridden or replaced by another policy since it was made effective.

[13] Compare State v. Westrom, 6 N.W.3d 145 (Minn. 2024) (explaining that police covertly followed an IGG-identified suspect at a hockey game and pulled his used napkin from a trash can, DNA from which was an STR match to DNA from a 1993 crime scene) with State v. Carbo, 6 N.W.3d 114 (Minn. 2024) (explaining that police approached an IGG-identified suspect in public and obtained a DNA sample by simply asking without explaining why, which was an STR match to DNA from a 1986 crime scene).

[14] D’Antoni, supra note 9.

[15] Cholistani, et. al., Forensic Genealogy: A Powerful Investigation Tool for Resolving the Cold Cases, 12 J. Forensic Sci. & Criminology 3 (2024).

[16] Thomas Fuller & Christine Hauser, Search for ‘Golden State Killer’ Leads to Arrest of Ex-Cop, N.Y. Times (Apr. 25, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/us/golden-state-killer-serial.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer.

[17] Ray Wickenheiser, Forensic Genealogy, Bioethics and the Golden State Killer Case, 1 Forensic Sci. Int’l 114 (2019).

[18] State v. Westrom and State v. Carbo, supra note 13.

[19] State v. Westrom, 6 N.W.3d 145, 151 (Minn. 2024).

[20] Id.

[21] See id.

[22] State v. Carbo, 6 N.W.3d 114, 119 (Minn. 2024).

[23] Id.

[24] See id.

[25] Erik Ortiz, Idaho College Student Killings: A Summary and Timeline, NBC News (published Dec. 31, 2022; last updated Mar. 13, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/idaho-college-student-killings-summary-timeline-rcna63818.

[26] See Order on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Re: Genetic Information (Feb. 19, 2025), State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665.

[27] See id. The defendant also challenged the constitutionality of a trash pull that provided DNA samples from his parents that helped build the case against him, but this issue is not relevant to the larger issue of SNP profiling. The defendant also challenged the use of the third-party genealogy websites, but this claim was rejected for lack of standing.

[28] See id.

[29] Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring).

[30] State v. Carbo, 6 N.W.3d 114, 119 (Minn. 2024) (Procaccini, J., concurring). In fact, the order from the Ada County judge notes that Justice Procaccini’s concurrence was the sole support for the Idaho murder defendant’s motion to suppress. Although Justice Procaccini disagreed with the Carbo majority’s decision finding no Fourth Amendment violation in SNP profiling, Justice Procaccini agreed with denying the motion to suppress, instead applying the good-faith-reliance-on-binding-precedent doctrine to forgive the constitutional violation.

[31] Skinner v. Ry. Lab. Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 616 (1989).

[32] State v. Carbo, 6 N.W.3d 114, 119 (Minn. 2024).

[33] Order on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, supra note 26, at 15.

[34] Id.

[35] Id.