Supreme Court confirms IRS right to access customer data from crypto exchanges without warrant

The United States Supreme Court has allowed a lower court ruling to stand, granting the Internal Revenue Service broad authority to access customer data from cryptocurrency exchanges.

On Monday, the court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in Harper v. Faulkender, docket number 24-922, ending a legal challenge that questioned the constitutionality of the IRS obtaining vast amounts of user information from Coinbase without a specific warrant.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the case means the last major ruling on the matter, issued by a lower federal court, now stands as a powerful legal precedent. That ruling was a decisive victory for the IRS.

The outcome solidifies the government’s authority to compel crypto exchanges to turn over vast amounts of customer transaction data.

By choosing not to intervene, the Court has affirmed that this data is subject to government scrutiny, cementing a key tool for tax enforcement and intensifying the privacy-versus-convenience debate for millions of crypto investors.

What does this mean for me?

For the users, this means that financial information held on a centralized exchange like Coinbase does not carry the same constitutional privacy protections as personal papers grounded in the Fourth Amendment.

This amendment protects against unreasonable searches by recognizing a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in your private documents. Typically, a government warrant is required for access.

However, the protection essentially dissolves when applied to financial data shared with a third party like Coinbase. Under the long-standing “third-party doctrine,” by voluntarily entrusting your information to a company, you relinquish that expectation of privacy.

Consequently, the government can often access these financial records with a lower legal standard, such as a subpoena, rather than the more stringent warrant required to search your personal papers at home.

Now, if you trade crypto on a U.S. exchange, the government can get your account records, even if you personally did nothing suspicious. The legal reasoning is that once you share data with a third party, like a crypto platform, you give up some privacy rights.

For the crypto industry, this ruling could encourage more users to use self-custody wallets or decentralized exchanges, where they control their own keys and data.

But it also signals that U.S. authorities have broad surveillance power over centralized crypto businesses, putting digital assets squarely in the same regulatory orbit as traditional bank accounts.

In short: the IRS won big, privacy advocates lost, and centralized exchanges are under more pressure than ever to comply with sweeping government data requests.

Where did this all begin?

The case originated from an IRS “John Doe” summons issued to Coinbase in 2016. The summons demanded records for all U.S. users who engaged in transactions exceeding $20,000 between 2013 and 2015.

This action was part of a broader effort by the agency to address what it perceived as a tax compliance gap among crypto users. James Harper, a Coinbase user whose data was implicated, challenged the summons, arguing that it constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and violated his Fifth Amendment rights.

Harper contended that the government was effectively conducting a fishing expedition, compelling a third party, Coinbase, to turn over private financial records without demonstrating probable cause related to a specific individual.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit previously ruled against Harper, upholding the government’s authority. Its decision rested heavily on the third-party doctrine, a legal principle holding that individuals have a diminished expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily share with third parties.

The court found that customers had entrusted their data to the exchange by using Coinbase, thereby forfeiting some privacy protection. The court also cited a requirement that financial institutions maintain certain records as further justification for the government’s access to the data.

Harper’s legal team was supported by amicus briefs from organizations like the Cato Institute and, as noted in the Supreme Court’s order, Professor Adam J. MacLeod. All of them argued that the digital age requires a re-evaluation of traditional privacy doctrines.

By declining to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court leaves the First Circuit’s decision as the prevailing precedent.

The outcome solidifies the IRS’s power to compel exchanges to disclose user data, a tool the agency views as essential for enforcing tax law.

Date	Milestone/Event
2013-2015	Period of transactions under IRS investigation. James Harper actively uses Coinbase.
Nov 2016	IRS serves its initial, broad “John Doe” summons on Coinbase, seeking data on ~500,000 users.
Nov 2017	After Coinbase resists, a federal court orders compliance with a narrowed summons, targeting 14,355 users with >$20,000 in annual transactions.
Feb 2018	Coinbase notifies affected customers that it will comply with the court order and turn over their data.
Aug 2019	James Harper receives Letter 6173 from the IRS, informing him he may have misreported his crypto transactions, prompting his lawsuit.
Aug 2020	Harper files his lawsuit against the IRS, alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations.
Mar 2021	The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire dismisses Harper’s case.
Sep 2024	The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirms the dismissal, upholding the application of the third-party doctrine.
Jun 2025	The U.S. Supreme Court denies Harper’s petition for a writ of certiorari, letting the First Circuit ruling stand as the final word on the case.

For the crypto industry, the finality of this case may accelerate the user migration toward self-custody solutions and decentralized exchanges, where individuals maintain direct control over their private keys and data.

The ruling draws a clear line, confirming that users on centralized U.S. exchanges are subject to a level of financial surveillance comparable to that within the traditional banking system. The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari effectively concludes this chapter on the matter.