What to Expect When Your Phone Gets Taken at the Airport
Handing your phone over to law enforcement is rarely a good idea, even if you haven’t done anything wrong. Unfortunately, for international travelers at U.S. airports, this can be a reality, regardless of their citizenship status.
Take the case of Janette Zahia Corcelius, a labor organizer from Minnesota. After returning from a three-week trip to Europe in late April, she found herself detained and interrogated by customs agents at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. During this encounter, her luggage was searched twice, political materials she had bought overseas were confiscated, and her phone was seized—still unrecovered as per a federal court complaint filed in Minnesota.
The question arises: is it constitutional for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to take and retain your phone? The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is representing Corcelius in her lawsuit against the government, argues that it is not. They claim she is being targeted due to her opposition to ICE raids in Minneapolis. The lawsuit contends that the seizure of her phone infringes on her Fourth Amendment rights and violates CBP’s own regulations regarding searches and seizures.
However, this issue extends beyond just one phone. CAIR asserts that CBP is engaging in systematic searches of devices belonging to activists, employing counterterrorism tactics to target left-wing critics, aligning with the previous administration’s focus on what they labeled “Violent Left-Wing Extremists, including Anarchists and Anti-Fascists.”
According to the complaint, Corcelius contacted her attorney after being pulled aside for questioning and handed her phone to the CBP manager on duty for that purpose. Shortly after, she was informed that her phone would be confiscated. Both CBP agents and those from Homeland Security Investigations, a division of ICE that deals with international crime and national security, searched her other belongings.
At the border, CBP can perform two types of searches on electronic devices: basic inspections, where they can only view what’s on the phone while it’s in airplane mode, and advanced forensic searches, which involve connecting the phone to external devices to access and potentially copy its contents. While American citizens cannot be barred from reentering the U.S. if they refuse a phone search, their devices can still be seized. If agents manage to unlock the phone—whether through manual means, biometrics, or specialized tools from companies like Cellebrite—the contents can be examined.
Since the previous administration’s return to power, there have been reports of immigrants, tourists, and noncitizens being deported or denied entry after their phones were searched by CBP. Activists, including those involved in humanitarian efforts related to Cuba, have also faced phone seizures at the border.
While phone searches by CBP are still relatively uncommon, they are increasing. The agency reported 55,318 searches of phones and electronic devices during the 2025 fiscal year, a significant rise from 41,767 in 2023—a 32 percent jump.
The CAIR complaint highlights that border agents can only confiscate property at a port of entry if they have reasonable cause to believe a law or regulation has been violated, with the exception of “national security concerns.”
Following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk last September, the previous administration issued an executive order labeling “Antifa” as a terrorist organization, despite it not being a formal entity. This was part of a broader strategy to investigate participants in what they termed “criminal and terroristic conspiracies.” By associating Kirk’s killer with “antifa terrorists,” the administration created a pretext for targeting critics of the government.
In January, the administration characterized the resistance to ICE’s actions in the Twin Cities as a coordinated effort and announced that the FBI was probing Signal chats used by Minnesotans to organize against ICE. One of the individuals killed by DHS agents was labeled a “domestic terrorist” by a presidential adviser.
Corcelius was among those opposing ICE’s presence in her community. She not only organized against it but also shared information on social media about a Minneapolis City Council resolution urging European institutions to divest from companies that work with DHS.
John Fossum, a CAIR attorney representing Corcelius, expressed concern about the implications of these policies. He stated that the use of terrorist designations in domestic policy discussions allows the administration to exploit national security frameworks to conduct searches and seizures that would otherwise be prohibited under domestic law.
Corcelius is seeking a federal court order to prevent CBP from conducting advanced searches of her phone, to delete any information obtained from it, and to return her phone and belongings. She also wants the court to restrict DHS from performing non-routine searches of her property in the future and to revise its policies regarding such searches.
Even if the court rules in her favor, it may not prevent CBP from targeting activists in the future. A federal judge in New York previously ruled that CBP cannot search travelers’ phones without a warrant, but this ruling only applies to New York’s Eastern District. Conversely, a U.S. appeals court has upheld that CBP agents can search devices without a warrant, leading to a confusing patchwork of regulations across the country. In some areas, CBP can perform warrantless basic inspections but not forensic ones, while in others, they have broader authority. Any ruling in Corcelius’ case may only be applicable in Minnesota.
As of now, she has yet to recover her phone.
