Is this then a done deal? Or can the Supreme Court somehow decide there was a half-sentence in a Federalist Paper which argued the opposite and invalidate the ruling?

> But on Wednesday, Judge Nina Morrison in the Eastern District of New York ruled that cellphone searches are a "nonroutine" search, more akin to a strip search than scanning a suitcase or passing a traveler through a metal detector.

Honestly, I would probably rather undergo a strip search than a cellphone scan. There won’t be any incriminating evidence I have forgotten about and everything is done as soon as I leave the room. With a cellphone scan, I have to worry about something that was innocent that I have even forgotten about but may be considered incriminating now. In addition, they would now have enough information for identity theft. Also, I don’t know that is happening with the data or if any back doors have been installed.

This isn't a landmark case...Courts have been ruling against warrantless border searches for years, see US v Cano (2019), US v Aigbekaen (2019).

Indeed, this same federal court has already ruled against warrantless phone searches in US v Smith (SDNY 2023).

Is it still the case that "at the border" actually means "anywhere within 100 miles of the US border"?

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

Does this apply only to U.S. Citizens?

Or does it apply to everybody?

And if it does, is it reason to refuse someone? I.e. can they refuse an L1B visa holder entry because he/she doesn't allow them to search the phone?

So these criminals that have been performing the illegal searches. The next step is they'll be charged with false imprisonment, extortion, and conspiracy, right?

Oh, okay then, how about at least for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law?

Well then, what about monetary damages for the people whose data was copied, devices were stolen or could no longer be trusted, wasted time and missed flights, costs of retaining an attorney to defend themselves, etc?

Oh, the result is that the criminals that did this are just going to have to pause for a little bit until some attorney working for their agency, whom we are also paying for, writes a new justification with slightly tweaked reasoning, at which time the perps will resume?!?

Sovereign immunity strikes again. None of these terrible authoritarian dynamics are ever going to be reigned in until sovereign immunity is severely curtailed. At the very least we need civil liability that compensates the victims out of the department's budget. Ideally there should be criminal liability, either on the individuals performing the illegal actions, or if they're following written policy then whomever instituted that policy.

And if you think this sounds extreme, then note it's still more lenient than what the rest of us get! Security guards, private investigators, and even just individuals defending themselves still manage to operate while staying well away from the edges of the law. And in general, staying away from the edges of the law is the exact dynamic we want for those involved in physically coercing others.

I’m curious, if your phone is locked, were they ever able to demand that you unlock it so they could conduct a search?

> Judge Nina Morrison in the Eastern District of New York ruled that cellphone searches are a "nonroutine" search, more akin to a strip search than scanning a suitcase or passing a traveler through a metal detector.

Does a strip search also require a warrant though?

Use a burner phone for sketchy countries.

They can still get your texts and contacts and call history from your car though. In many cars it syncs.

This is great but if you were to state this case when asked to search your phone, they can still deny entry or detain you regardless.

It is amazing how the U.S. consistently gets away with this and is still perceived as a free country.

In the 1980s the only border I knew where printed material was searched was the East German border. Back then the practice was considered outrageous.

Bad ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

The government has a 100% absolute right and responsibility to control what's coming across the border. That's been the common law since King Narmer.

In law school, it's common to skip these cases for time and have the professor summarize the caselaw as "you have no rights at border."