The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a major crypto privacy case leaves intact rulings that uphold the IRS’ power to obtain bitcoin user data without consent.
IRS Retains Authority to Access Bitcoin Transaction Data Without User Consent
A constitutional challenge over the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) ability to obtain cryptocurrency transaction records without a warrant has reached its limit, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case. The Court’s refusal leaves in place lower court decisions that upheld the government’s data collection practices and reinforces the IRS’ authority to access user information from crypto platforms without individualized suspicion.
The case, Harper v. Faulkender, was brought by James Harper, a former user of Coinbase, Abra, and Uphold, who received a letter from the IRS in 2019 referencing his virtual currency activity. Harper, who said he had accurately reported and paid taxes on his bitcoin holdings, later discovered that the IRS had acquired his account data without notice. That acquisition stemmed from a 2016 “John Doe” summons the IRS issued to Coinbase, seeking records of users who had transacted over $20,000 in digital assets between 2013 and 2015.
In response, Harper filed a lawsuit challenging the legality and constitutionality of the IRS’ access to his financial records. He argued the agency’s actions violated his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and his Fifth Amendment due process rights. He also contended the summons failed to meet statutory requirements under 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f) and should be reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
After losing in the lower courts, Harper filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to hear his appeal and reconsider the constitutional implications of the IRS’ actions. A writ of certiorari is a legal mechanism that enables the Supreme Court to review decisions from lower courts. On June 30, the Supreme Court responded:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
That decision allows rulings by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to remain in effect. Those courts found Harper had no reasonable expectation of privacy over data shared with third-party exchanges, no property interest in those records, and no legal basis to challenge the summons under the APA. The First Circuit further ruled that the IRS’ actions did not constitute final agency action subject to judicial review.
The core issue in Harper’s challenge—whether individuals maintain constitutional privacy interests in data held by crypto exchanges—remains unresolved. At stake is the continued use of the “third-party doctrine,” which holds that individuals forfeit privacy protections when they share information with intermediaries. Critics argue that doctrine fails to reflect modern digital realities. Though Harper’s legal options are now exhausted, debates over data privacy in the context of digital assets are far from over.
