Read the Alito and Sotomayor concurrences (well, to be specific Sotomayor concurred in full, while Alito concurred only in judgement) in Antoine Jones v. United

Read the Alito and Sotomayor concurrences (well, to be specific Sotomayor concurred in full, while Alito concurred only in judgement) in Antoine Jones v. United States (GPS surveilance of a car requires a warrant) and Douglass's dissent in California Business Association v. Shultz (a case that decided there was no 4th Amendment protection for bank records). The encouraging thing is that you can't read both of these and not think that maybe the court is slowly coming around to our side (pesky issues like standing notwithstanding, heh). I actually don't think the third party doctrine has that much to do with call detail records. The issue is not only that they are held by a third party but that, at least when this was originally litigated, they weren't really that expressive, and there is already a major question as to whether historic cell site location data (also covered by the order btw) is protected, with already circuit splits forming on the issue.