Once you change the constitution it can't be thrown out be the SCOTUS by definition. They can interpret constitutional law or declare law unconstitutional, they can't blatantly ignore the constitution (well, in theory...).

In short, the facility to reverse supreme court decisions is a constitutional amendment.

lukifer is asking about whether a normal bill (law) would be sufficient, as opposed to yuhong's suggestions of a constitutional amendment.

Congress can't change the scope of Constitutional rights, either to expand or narrow them. They could, however, simply outlaw the practice.

This all happened once before, with the Church Commission, and we were able to step back from the brink, using statutory rather than Constitutional fixes. Today, it seems we lack the political will to do so again.

I am thinking about defining foreign spying powers of the government.

> Would a bill to explicitly define the 4th to include data storage have sufficient force of law?

I don't think it would be a separation of powers problem in and of itself, but by virtue of separation of powers the judiciary wouldn't be bound to follow that interpretation.