Second Circuit allows suspicionless cellphone searches at the border

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

On September 17, a federal appeals court ruled that border agents can search a traveler's cellphone without a warrant or any suspicion of wrongdoing. The decision in United States v. Alisigwe treats a phone as ordinary property, subject to the long-standing border exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

The ruling goes further than any other appeals court and widens a circuit split that now reaches the Supreme Court. For international travelers, the practical question is simple: how much of your digital life can an agent read before you've done anything wrong?

Why it matters

Your phone holds medical records, messages, location history, and photos. In the Second Circuit, border agents can now review all of it without suspecting a crime.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

55,318

Electronic device searches by CBP in fiscal year 2025

Out of 419 million travelers processed at U.S. ports of entry, CBP searched about 0.01 percent of devices.

0.01

Share of international travelers whose devices were searched

CBP reports that device searches remain rare despite the legal authority to conduct them.

Share of searches that were manual 'basic' searches

Basic searches involve no external equipment; the rest are advanced forensic searches that CBP policy already conditions on reasonable suspicion.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

People Involved

Steven Menashi

Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Author of the majority opinion in United States v. Alisigwe

Eunice Lee

Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Concurred in the judgment but argued reasonable suspicion should be required

Chinwendu Alisigwe

Defendant

Convicted of fraud; seeking to suppress cellphone evidence

Organizations Involved

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Federal appellate court

Author of the ruling in United States v. Alisigwe

The federal appeals court covering New York, Vermont, and Connecticut.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Federal agency

Conducts border searches of electronic devices

The federal agency responsible for inspecting travelers and goods at U.S. ports of entry.

Timeline

June 2014 September 2026

3 events Latest: Yesterday

September 2026
Second Circuit allows suspicionless border phone searches
Latest Legal ruling

In United States v. Alisigwe, the Second Circuit held border agents need neither a warrant nor reasonable suspicion to search a traveler's cellphone.
Yesterday
July 2026
Fourth Circuit limits suspicion requirement
Legal ruling

In July 2026, the Fourth Circuit ruled manual cellphone searches at the border need no suspicion, but forensic searches do.
July 14th, 2026
June 2014
Supreme Court requires warrant for phone searches
Legal precedent

Riley v. California held police need a warrant to search a phone seized during an arrest, calling devices carriers of 'the privacies of life.'
June 25th, 2014

Scenarios

Supreme Court takes up the border phone search question

Possible Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Volokh Conspiracy at Reason; Electronic Frontier Foundation

Alisigwe's attorneys petition for certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to decide whether the Fourth Amendment requires suspicion before border agents search an electronic device. The petition can point to a live circuit split: the Second Circuit now allows suspicionless phone searches outright, while the Ninth Circuit has required reasonable suspicion for forensic device searches and the Fourth Circuit requires it for forensic searches. If the Court grants review, a decision would settle the rule nationwide within the term.

Second Circuit rehears Alisigwe en banc

Unlikely Resolves by End of 2026

Discussed by: Defense attorneys and civil liberties groups

The 2-1 panel split, with Judge Lee concurring only in the judgment, gives Alisigwe's lawyers grounds to seek rehearing before the full court. En banc grants are rare, but the internal disagreement over a question affecting every international traveler, plus the rulings in other circuits, could draw a majority. A rehearing would let the full court impose a reasonable-suspicion requirement without waiting for the Supreme Court.

CBP revises its device search policy

Possible Resolves by Q1 2027

Discussed by: Privacy advocates and agency observers

The ruling says the Constitution does not require suspicion for any device search, but CBP's own directive still demands reasonable suspicion and supervisor approval for advanced forensic searches. The agency could respond to the ruling by loosening that internal requirement, matching the court's holding, or it could keep the stricter policy and let practice exceed the constitutional floor. A policy change would shift how many travelers actually face forensic searches.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

June 1977

United States v. Ramsey (1977)

Border agents opened incoming international mail from Thailand and found heroin. The Supreme Court upheld the search, ruling that border searches require neither a warrant nor probable cause, citing 'the longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless reasonable.'

Then

The Court rejected warrants for border searches of mail and packages.

Now

It cemented the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment, which later cases extended to vehicles and baggage.

Why this matters now

The Second Circuit relied directly on Ramsey's general rule that border searches of property are reasonable without suspicion, applying it to the digital contents of a phone.

June 2004

United States v. Flores-Montano (2004)

Border agents disassembled a car's fuel tank during a suspicionless search and found 37 kilograms of marijuana. The Supreme Court upheld the search, declining to require reasonable suspicion for a property search at the border.

Then

Agents kept broad authority to search vehicles and their parts without suspicion.

Now

The Court established that property searches at the border are reasonable without individualized suspicion or a warrant.

Why this matters now

Menashi leaned on this property logic: since a cellphone is property, the same rule applies, regardless of how much personal data the device holds.

June 2014

Riley v. California (2014)

The Supreme Court unanimously required a warrant before police search an arrested person's phone, writing that modern phones hold 'the privacies of life' and are 'a digital fingerprint' of their user.

Then

Police needed a warrant to look through a phone seized during an arrest.

Now

The decision set a high bar for digital searches in ordinary policing, treating data as different from physical containers.

Why this matters now

Riley's heightened protection for phone data sits in direct tension with the border exception; the Second Circuit chose the border exception, while critics argue Riley should govern.