The bipartisan proposed federal law was sponsored by Representative Kevin Yoder, a Republican from Kansas, and then-Representative Jared Polis, a Democrat of Colorado.
The legislation would require authorities such as the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission to obtain a search warrant to access emails, data in cloud storage, and other digital communications more than 180 days old.
In that case, the Sixth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that the government obtain a warrant before accessing emails stored online (e.g., in the cloud).
"[8] A wide array of civil society groups, corporations, and trade associations issued an open letter in April 2016 expressing support for the Email Privacy Act.
[10][11] A public-opinion survey of U.S. registered voters conducted by Vox Populi Polling on behalf of the Digital 4th Coalition found that 77 percent agreed that a warrant should be required to access "emails, photos and other private communications stored online.
[1][12] In Senate committee testimony given in September 2015, Federal Trade Commission officials expressed concern that "recent proposals could impede its ability to obtain certain information" from Internet companies.
However, it never made it out of the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations.
"[17] Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, offered two amendments in the Judiciary Committee that weakened the legislation: one to give federal authorities the power to access electronic identifying information without a warrant in counterterrorism cases, and the other to give the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or someone acting in his or her capacity "the power to compel a provider to hand over the name, physical address, email, telephone number or other identifying information" if relevant to "an authorized counterterrorism operation.
[20] The Sessions amendment was opposed by advocates for privacy rights, "because it does not require any judicial backstop to review the action afterward to see if the surveillance was warranted and should continue.