Border agents can search cellphones without a warrant: Court

Skip to main content

Live & On Demand

YouTube

Home Page

Live

Watch Live: Law & Crime Network
9 Shocking Times Defendants Testified at Trial10 Most Memorable Law&Crime Network TrialsWatch Live: Brevard County Bond Court

Where to Watch

TV Schedule
Bodycam Videos
Shows
Law&Crime Productions
Hosts
Podcasts
Shop
Book Club
Sales
Subscribe

Live & On Demand

YouTube

Home Page

Live

Watch Live: Law & Crime Network
9 Shocking Times Defendants Testified at Trial10 Most Memorable Law&Crime Network TrialsWatch Live: Brevard County Bond Court

Where to Watch

TV Schedule
Bodycam Videos
Shows
Law&Crime Productions
Hosts
Podcasts
Shop
Book Club
Sales
Subscribe

'The government was entitled': Trump's border agents can now search cellphones without a warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion, 2nd Circuit rules
Colin KalmbacherSep 18th, 2026, 8:54 am  

Share

Twitter share button

copy link

President Donald Trump speaks at an event at the General Motors Proving Ground Monday, July 27, 2026, in Milford, Mich. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya).
The Trump administration won a substantial victory in a Fourth Amendment fight on Thursday as a federal court of appeals ruled that a traveler's cellphone may be searched by government agents at the border without a warrant or suspicion.
In a case that began under the Biden administration, Chinwendu Alisigwe, a green card holder, was convicted of financial crimes in 2023. On appeal, and in an earlier suppression memo, he argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents scrolled through his cellphone and took photographs.
The Department of Justice, in bipartisan fashion, aimed to keep the cellphone evidence in play, arguing the border search exception applies. The government further argued against extending the reach of a landmark Fourth Amendment opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the justices unanimously found police must have a warrant to search a cellphone seized during an arrest.

Sign up for the Law&Crime Daily Newsletter for more breaking news and updates

In an effectively unanimous decision, with one concurrence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit sided with the DOJ. The appellate court's ruling, however, notably and explicitly breaks with the district court decision that reached the same result.
"First, we conclude that the district court properly denied Alisigwe's motion to suppress evidence obtained at the border," the 43-page opinion reads. "Contrary to the district court's reasoning, however, reasonable suspicion was not required."
In other words, the 2nd Circuit dispensed with the lower court's ruling in order to carve out a broader exception to the Fourth Amendment.

"Routine searches at the border are reasonable simply because those searches occur at the border," the panel concluded. "Because the search of Alisigwe's cellphone was a routine search, the government was entitled to conduct the search without suspicion."
The appeals court, in reaching its conclusion, likened a traveler's cellphone to a piece of luggage.
"Under our precedents, no suspicion is required before the government searches a traveler's property at the border," the opinion goes on. "Because a cellphone is property, our precedents establish that the government does not need to have reasonable suspicion before searching a traveler's cellphone at the border."
The court distinguished the idea of "non-routine" border searches, which it said "generally" refers to "intrusive border searches of the person (such as body-cavity searches or strip searches), not belongings."
In rejecting the logic of the warrant requirement for cellphones seized during an arrest, the panel determined the Supreme Court was more concerned with "harm to officers and destruction of evidence." In the present case, the search of a cellphone is only about looking at "digital data," the appeals court reasoned, so those concerns are not relevant.
"[T]he rationale for the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not have 'much force with respect to digital content on cell phones,'" the opinion continues. "That holding does not implicate the border-search exception, which relies on a different rationale."
The 2nd Circuit reasoned that the broad ruling is in line with previous rulings that allow warrantless searches.
From the opinion:
Our precedent holding that the government may perform pretextual searches at the border without a warrant means that the government is not limited to searching for contraband or evidence of border offenses. That is because the government's interest at the border is not limited to detecting physical contraband. Rather, the government has "broad authority to control who and what enters the country." Searching for evidence of criminality among those entering the country is an exercise of that authority.
The opinion contains one self-imposed limit on the grant of government authority — declining to extend its own logic to the idea of a more invasive digital search of a device using another digital tool.
"Because this case involves only a manual review of the contents of the cellphone, we need not decide whether the use of 'sophisticated forensic search methods,' such as 'the off-site forensic analysis of the phone's data,' might qualify as a nonroutine search requiring reasonable suspicion," the court says in a footnote.
The 2nd Circuit also makes sure to clarify the reach of its ruling.
In his own motions, Alisigwe notes that several district courts in Manhattan and Brooklyn adopted a warrant requirement for the search of a cellphone at the border.
"Those decisions are wrong," Circuit Judge Steven Menashi, a Trump appointee, wrote.
The decision was joined in full by U.S. District Judge Hector Gonzalez, a Joe Biden appointee sitting by designation. The judgment was joined by Circuit Judge Eunice Lee, who was also appointed by Biden.

Tags: 4th AmendmentDonald TrumpJoe BidenU.S. Supreme Court

Follow Law&Crime:

Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Top of Today

Former police officer who gunned down 71-year-old driver in busy Walmart parking lot following brief traffic dispute is sentenced

Teen shoots buddy to death in Dick's Sporting Goods dressing room, then runs out to ditch the gun instead of trying to save him: Cops

Mom walked in on 14-year-old son playing video games and 'started stabbing him' out of nowhere, DA says

Parents vanish for 8 hours while 4-year-old son lies completely unresponsive after accidentally swallowing dangerous THC gummy: Police

Man strangled boyfriend to death with electrical cord, stuffed him in shed and was arrested just before he was set to board a cruise: Cops

Tips

Have a tip or story idea? Email us.
Or to keep it anonymous, click here.

Comments

Loading comments...

You may also like:

Judge allows discovery tied to Trump's AF1 'placard,' orders sworn proof that Kennedy Center 'closure' is legitimate

Matt NahamSep 17th, 2026, 11:18 am Updated Sep 17th, 2026, 2:49 pm

Jan. 6 rioter pardoned by Trump arrested again after 'doing donuts' on the beach around 911 caller's truck and posing with guns, feds say

Colin KalmbacherSep 16th, 2026, 5:36 pm

Trump DOJ demands SCOTUS take the wheel after probe of Letitia James' civil fraud case stalls, points out 'a better vehicle' already exists

Matt NahamSep 16th, 2026, 4:21 pm

'Uncertain and opaque': Trump admin violating FOIA by refusing to release USPS whistleblower documents related to mail-in ballot takeover scheme, watchdog says

Colin KalmbacherSep 16th, 2026, 1:43 pm

John Eastman is disbarred in California for his Trump-related work but practicing law on the federal bench and decrying 'despicable cancel culture'

Colin KalmbacherSep 15th, 2026, 4:51 pm

Trump and his lawyers did nothing to disturb court's 'binding legal consequences' for 'their bad faith' lawsuit against IRS, judge says

Matt NahamSep 15th, 2026, 3:32 pm

© 2026 LawNewz

About Us

Advertise

Newsletter

Privacy

Accessibility

User Agreement

Ethics & Diversity Policy

Contact

Dan Abrams, Founder

A federal court of appeals ruled that government agents can search travelers' cellphones at the border without requiring a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion, marking a significant development in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. This decision was reached in a case involving Chinwendu Alisigwe, a green card holder who had been convicted of financial crimes in 2023, who had challenged the search of his cellphone by Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection agents on appeal. The government, through the Department of Justice, argued that an exception to warrant requirements applied to these border searches, contending that routine searches at the border justified the action.

The second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Department of Justice, explicitly differentiating its reasoning from the district court's decision. The court concluded that because the search of the cellphone was considered a routine search occurring at the border, the government was entitled to conduct the search without needing reasonable suspicion. The court analogized the cellphone to luggage, establishing that precedents dictate no suspicion is necessary before the government searches a traveler's property at the border. The court further distinguished between routine searches of belongings, such as cellphones, and more intrusive border searches directed at the person, such as body-cavity searches.

The court rejected the application of the search-incident-to-arrest exception to digital content on cellphones, reasoning that this exception derives its force from a different rationale than the border search exception. The court determined that the rationale behind the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not apply substantively to the digital content contained on mobile devices. Furthermore, the court reasoned that the Supreme Court's concern in the case related to the harm to officers or destruction of evidence is less relevant when the search involves only a manual review of the cellphone's contents, as opposed to sophisticated forensic analysis.

The ruling establishes that the government’s authority at the border extends beyond detecting physical contraband; it encompasses controlling who and what enters the country, thereby justifying the exercise of authority to search for evidence of criminality among those entering. The court imposed a self-imposed limitation, declining to extend its logic to justify more invasive digital searches utilizing sophisticated forensic methods. Specifically, the court noted that because the case involved only a manual review of the cellphone's contents, it did not need to adjudicate whether the use of such methods might qualify as a nonroutine search requiring reasonable suspicion. This decision clarifies the scope of warrantless searches concerning personal property at the border, emphasizing the government's broad authority in controlling entry while setting boundaries on the invocation of Fourth Amendment protections for digital searches in this context.