Case 1:20-mc-00036-JEB-DAR Document 10 Filed 08/18/20 Page 14 of 29 Moreover, the statutory history shows that Congress did not intend to protect the privacy interests of foreign governments and their actors, much less foreign genocidal government actors, when it passed the SCA. Congress passed the SCA in 1986 to extend Fourth Amendment protections to new forms of communications.14 At that time, it did not contemplate the widespread use of the internet, the possibility that communications would be occurring internationally, and it certainly did not contemplate the advent of social media platforms. What Congress did contemplate, was that the SCA would apply to the citizens of the United States, which would naturally preclude application to foreign states and their actors: But most important, if Congress does not act to protect the privacy of our citizens, we may see the gradual erosion of a precious right. Privacy cannot be left to depend solely on physical protection, or it will gradually erode as technology advances. Additional legal protection is necessary to ensure the continued vitality of the Fourth Amendment. The Committee believes the bill represent a fair balance between the privacy expectations of citizens and the legitimate needs of law enforcement.15 Additionally, the Supreme Court has previously held, in the context of search and seizures by U.S. agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country, that “[t]he Fourth Amendment’s drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government and not to restrain the Federal Government’s actions against aliens outside United States territory.”16 The Court based this reading off of the Fourth Amendment’s use of the word “people” (versus the Fifth Amendment’s protections of “all persons”), which indicates that the Amendment is 14 See, S. Rep. No 99-541, at 1-3 (1986), as reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3555, 3555-57 (setting forth purpose of the SCA); H.R. Rep. No. 99-647, at 19 (1986) (citing the SCA’s intent to provide the “[a]dditional legal protection … necessary to ensure the continued vitality of the Fourth Amendment.”). 15 H.R. Rep. No. 99-647, at 19 (1986) (emphasis added). 16 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 260 (1990). 8