The NY Times coverage says it's very limited. Roberts wrote:
“We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party"
IIRC the current 4th amendment interpretation, 'third party doctrine' says that is a rare situation. However, Roberts also wrote:
“While the third-party doctrine applies to telephone numbers and bank records, it is not clear whether its logic extends to the qualitatively different category of cell-site records,” he wrote. “After all, when Smith was decided in 1979, few could have imagined a society in which a phone goes wherever its owner goes, conveying to the wireless carrier not just dialed digits, but a detailed and comprehensive record of the person’s movements.”
“When the government tracks the location of a cell phone,” the chief justice wrote, “it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.”
Also, this seemingly ignorant comment from Kennedy (i.e., it seems a meaningless distinction), though he's not quoted and a brief summary so it is prone to misunderstanding:
In dissent, Justice Kennedy wrote that GPS devices provide much more precise location information than do cell towers.
“We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party"
IIRC the current 4th amendment interpretation, 'third party doctrine' says that is a rare situation. However, Roberts also wrote:
“While the third-party doctrine applies to telephone numbers and bank records, it is not clear whether its logic extends to the qualitatively different category of cell-site records,” he wrote. “After all, when Smith was decided in 1979, few could have imagined a society in which a phone goes wherever its owner goes, conveying to the wireless carrier not just dialed digits, but a detailed and comprehensive record of the person’s movements.”
“When the government tracks the location of a cell phone,” the chief justice wrote, “it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.”
Also, this seemingly ignorant comment from Kennedy (i.e., it seems a meaningless distinction), though he's not quoted and a brief summary so it is prone to misunderstanding:
In dissent, Justice Kennedy wrote that GPS devices provide much more precise location information than do cell towers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court...