Harper v. Werfel, 118 F.4th 100

The IRS issued a "John Doe" summons to Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange, seeking information about users, including James Harper, for tax compliance investigations.
Harper used Coinbase between 2013 and 2016 for Bitcoin transactions, then moved his holdings to an offline wallet.
After receiving an IRS letter indicating potential underreporting of virtual currency transactions, Harper challenged the legality and constitutionality of the IRS's information-gathering efforts.
Harper sued in federal court, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and arguing that the IRS failed to meet the statutory requirements for John Doe summonses under 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f), also seeking review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The district court dismissed all claims, finding no protected privacy or property interest in the Coinbase records and no procedural due process rights were implicated; it also rejected Harper's APA/statutory claim for lack of reviewable final agency action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fourth Amendment: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy	Harper had a justified privacy expectation in his Coinbase account info, akin to papers in his possession.	Info was voluntarily turned over to Coinbase (a third party); under the third-party doctrine, no privacy expectation exists.	No reasonable expectation of privacy; third-party doctrine applies (Miller).
Fourth Amendment: Property Interest	Harper's account info and transaction records are his personal property, merely held by Coinbase.	The records are Coinbase's business records, not Harper's private property.	No protected property interest; records belong to Coinbase per precedent.
Fifth Amendment: Due Process (Liberty/Privacy)	IRS violated his liberty interest in the confidentiality of financial info by not giving notice/opportunity to be heard.	No due process interest because info was voluntarily shared with a third party; fact-finding investigations do not trigger notice requirements.	No due process violation; no protected liberty or property interest shown; investigation does not implicate due process rights.
APA/Statutory: 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f) Compliance	IRS failed to meet statutory requirements for a John Doe summons; APA allows review.	The summons is not final agency action and is a preliminary investigation step, not reviewable under the APA.	No review under APA; issuance of a summons is not final agency action.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (the third-party doctrine: no privacy expectation in information voluntarily turned over to third parties)
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (no protected privacy or property interest in business records held by banks)
Tiffany Fine Arts, Inc. v. United States, 469 U.S. 310 (explains and limits John Doe summons procedures)
S.E.C. v. Jerry T. O'Brien, Inc., 467 U.S. 735 (no due process right to notice of subpoenas issued to third parties)
United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48 (sets statutory standards for IRS summonses)
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic records; distinguished from Miller and Smith)
Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (disclosure of personal information to government agencies and due process)
Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (expectation of privacy in government-archived personal information)