By American Bar Association
The American Bar Association has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to grant certiorari in the case of Anibowei v Blanche to decide whether the Fourth Amendment permits border agents to search the contents of a traveler’s cell phone without a warrant.
The ABA has long urged the federal judiciary to recognize the substantial privacy and confidentiality interests implicated by searches and seizures of electronic devices at the border, in addition to national security and law enforcement interests. The brief explains the privacy concerns involved in border searches of electronic devices generally and the special privacy concerns involving such searches of attorneys’ devices specifically.
The ABA has a long policy history supporting attorneys’ duties to protect confidential client information and maintain attorney-client privilege. The brief explains that smartphones have become a universal feature of modern life and can contain immense quantities of personal information. It notes that searches of electronic devices implicate privacy interests far greater than those associated with other types of searches.
The brief describes how attorneys increasingly rely on portable electronic devices to communicate with clients, store work product and manage active matters. Attorneys frequently carry both personal information and client-related materials on a single device. Attorneys have heightened privacy interests in their devices because of their ethical duty of confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege.
Warrantless border searches of an attorney’s device could expose significant amounts of confidential and privileged information to third parties, compromising the attorney’s compliance with ethical duties and jeopardizing privilege. The ABA has identified measures attorneys can take to navigate their ethical obligations under the border-search exception, such as traveling with an inexpensive phone scrubbed of confidential information, but such steps can hinder an attorney’s ability to remain in contact with clients and to practice while traveling.
The brief urges the court to resolve the split among the circuits over the question presented. Currently, different legal regimes can apply depending on the jurisdiction in which travelers, including attorneys, enter the United States.
The ABA brief in Anibowei v Blanche can be read online at www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/amicus/26-208-anibowei-v-blanche-091826.pdf. The law firm Hogan Lovells Cadwalader US LLP filed the brief pro bono on behalf of the ABA.
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2026/09/aba-amicus-brief-anibowei-v-blanche/)
The American Bar Association has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to grant certiorari in the case of Anibowei v Blanche to decide whether the Fourth Amendment permits border agents to search the contents of a traveler’s cell phone without a warrant.
The ABA has long urged the federal judiciary to recognize the substantial privacy and confidentiality interests implicated by searches and seizures of electronic devices at the border, in addition to national security and law enforcement interests. The brief explains the privacy concerns involved in border searches of electronic devices generally and the special privacy concerns involving such searches of attorneys’ devices specifically.
The ABA has a long policy history supporting attorneys’ duties to protect confidential client information and maintain attorney-client privilege. The brief explains that smartphones have become a universal feature of modern life and can contain immense quantities of personal information. It notes that searches of electronic devices implicate privacy interests far greater than those associated with other types of searches.
The brief describes how attorneys increasingly rely on portable electronic devices to communicate with clients, store work product and manage active matters. Attorneys frequently carry both personal information and client-related materials on a single device. Attorneys have heightened privacy interests in their devices because of their ethical duty of confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege.
Warrantless border searches of an attorney’s device could expose significant amounts of confidential and privileged information to third parties, compromising the attorney’s compliance with ethical duties and jeopardizing privilege. The ABA has identified measures attorneys can take to navigate their ethical obligations under the border-search exception, such as traveling with an inexpensive phone scrubbed of confidential information, but such steps can hinder an attorney’s ability to remain in contact with clients and to practice while traveling.
The brief urges the court to resolve the split among the circuits over the question presented. Currently, different legal regimes can apply depending on the jurisdiction in which travelers, including attorneys, enter the United States.
The ABA brief in Anibowei v Blanche can be read online at www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/amicus/26-208-anibowei-v-blanche-091826.pdf. The law firm Hogan Lovells Cadwalader US LLP filed the brief pro bono on behalf of the ABA.
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2026/09/aba-amicus-brief-anibowei-v-blanche/)
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
