A federal court will hear arguments on Wednesday, July 29, at 10:00 A.M. ET, regarding Custom and Border Protection’s seizure of two phones belonging to Grayzone founder and editor-in-chief, Max Blumenthal.
The court case comes after another legal case surrounding CBP conducting phone searches, in which one traveler was charged for allegedly using a “duress passcode” to wipe his phone after it was seized at the airport.
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), which is representing Blumenthal, is asking the court to produce evidence to determine what happened to the phones while they were in the custody of the CBP.
Blumenthal Had His Phones Seized By CBP Washington Dulles Airport After Returning From Iran
According to a press release sent to TheTravel, Max Blumenthal, best known for his reporting on U.S. foreign policy and Israel, was returning from a journalistic trip to Iran on July 10, when he was detained for two and a half hours at Washington Dulles International Airport. Officers questioned him about his journalism, who funded his travel, whether he had received payment for interviews, and whether he intended to return to Iran.
“I did nothing but report there. It was very clear that what I was doing was journalistic,” Blumenthal told the Committee to Protect Journalists.
While the TSA can’t search your phone, the CBP can, and in this case, officers seized his two phones. When Blumenthal declined to give over his passcodes, arguing doing so “could compromise his constitutional rights and confidential sources,” an officer told him that “the devices would be connected to machines to extract their data.“
The government returned the phones to Blumenthal on July 17, one day after the ADC filed an emergency motion arguing that the seizure and retention of the devices violated the First and Fourth Amendments and the Privacy Protection Act.
Government Says No Data Was Accessed But Questions Remain
A press release sent to TheTravel states that a CBP officer declared that “Blumenthal’s phones were referred for further inspection but that federal officials were unable to gain access to them.” The officer also asserts that no search was conducted and that the CBP did not possess or retain any information from the devices. With this in mind, and the fact that the phones were returned, the government is arguing that this case is now moot.
However, the ADC are not satisfied, arguing that those assurances do not answer central questions.
“The government cannot evade accountability for the serious constitutional violations alleged here simply by returning the phones after we moved for their return,” ADC President and Legal Director Jenin Younes said in the press release.
Younes continued by questioning why the CBP kept the phones for a whole week if they could not be accessed.
“CBP admits that the devices were sent for further inspection and that officials attempted to access them. If those efforts failed, the government must still explain why it kept the phones for a week, what technology it used, who had access to them, and what records document those efforts. A declaration asking the Court to accept the government’s assurances is not an adequate substitute for evidence.”
Blumenthal was also carrying a laptop and a camera with him at the time his phones were seized. However, he was allowed to keep these. The ADC argues that this raises questions over whether CBP officials were seeking access to private contacts, source communications, and other constitutionally protected material.
Today in court, the ADC is asking that the government’s mootness be denied and order production of the relevant forensic and chain-of-custody records, and proceed with the evidentiary hearing.
ACD Says The Case Could Set An Important Precedent
Beyond the questions surrounding Blumenthal’s phones, the ACD argues that the case could have wider implications for journalists entering the U.S.
The ACD pointed out in its press release that although Blumenthal was traveling with a number of other American journalists, he was the one that was singled out. Blumenthal took to his X account to state he was targeted because of the nature of his journalism.
It is noted that days before his return to the U.S., Trump ally Laura Loomer publicly called for Blumenthal’s arrest on X, and asked him to be questioned about who had funded his trip to Iran. He was later questioned by CBP along similar lines. After the seizure became public, Loomer praised the seizure and publicly characterized him as a national threat.
“Max returned alongside other American journalists, yet CBP singled him out after an influential political operative publicly called for his arrest. The overlap between those public demands, the questions CBP asked, and the decision to seize only his phones demands careful judicial scrutiny,” ADC Attorney Malak Afaneh said in the press release.
Afaneh continued, arguing that the implications extend well beyond a single journalist: “the government can seize a journalist’s devices after political pressure, retain them for a week, and then avoid answering what occurred simply by returning them, it sets a dangerous precedent for press freedom and the constitutional rights of every citizen.”
In the press release, the ADC also point out that the seizure of a journalist’s phone threatens much more than just the physical device. It potentially exposes confidential sources, unpublished reporting, private communications, and years of protected news-gathering.
They argue that allowing the government to not only seize these materials but retain them without meaningful explanation and then avoid judicial review by returning the hardware would create a dangerous path for government overreach and intimidation.
The outcome of the federal court today at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, may not only provide answers for what happened to Max Blumenthal’s phone while it was in the custody of CBP, but also shape future legal challenges involving border searches of electronic devices owned by journalists, and protections afforded to confidential material.
