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.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
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.
The post ‘The government was entitled’: Trump’s border agents can now search cellphones without a warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion, 2nd Circuit rules first appeared on Law & Crime.
