As the U.S. gears up to host global events like the 2026 FIFA World Cup, warrantless searches of travelers’ digital devices by border officials are raising major legal and ethical alarms.
At a Glance
- U.S. border officials can search digital devices without a warrant under the “border search exception”
- ACLU is challenging the policy, citing Supreme Court precedent from Riley v. California
- Citizens may face device seizure; non-citizens can be denied entry for noncompliance
- Courts are split on the level of suspicion required, with no Supreme Court ruling yet
- Critics warn the policy may chill political expression and harm U.S. tourism
Legal Loopholes and Civil Liberties
The American Civil Liberties Union is contesting what it calls a constitutional overreach: the “border search exception.” This rule permits warrantless digital searches at ports of entry—even if the traveler is not suspected of a crime. ACLU attorney Esha Bhandari likens the searches to rifling through someone’s mind: “It’s like searching someone’s home… the entire contents of someone’s mind.”
The ACLU draws on the landmark 2014 Supreme Court case Riley v. California, which held that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search cellphones during arrests. They argue this principle must apply at the border, too. “The Supreme Court… explained exactly why cellphones are qualitatively and quantitatively different,” added attorney Brian Spears.
Watch a report: Why U.S. border agents can legally search your phone.
Unequal Treatment, Unsettled Law
Current Customs and Border Protection (CBP) policy allows officers to search any device without probable cause. U.S. citizens may not be denied entry for refusing to unlock devices, though they can have their gadgets detained. Non-citizens face a starker threat: denial of entry altogether.
Courts have yet to unify around a clear legal standard. In some rulings, no suspicion is required. In others, “reasonable suspicion” must precede deeper searches. In a recent Second Circuit case involving Ezhil Kamaldoss, judges openly debated the policy’s logic. Judge Myrna Perez asked whether the policy meant “a body cavity search… requires less protection than looking at somebody’s laptop?”
Speech, Surveillance, and Economic Fallout
Privacy concerns also intersect with fears of political targeting. According to Metro UK, influencer Hasan Piker said U.S. agents questioned him about his views on Trump and Gaza, calling the interaction “deliberate.” Legal analyst Dr. Jennifer Obaseki warns, “It feels like a stretch on the authority they have, if not an abuse of power.”
Attorney-client and journalistic materials are also vulnerable. Although CBP claims limited protections exist, these remain policy-level and not constitutional guarantees.
As scrutiny increases, experts caution that tourism and business travel could decline. With major international events looming, privacy policies at U.S. borders may soon carry economic as well as legal consequences.
