US citizen questioning by customs upon return

[Brovane]

Just because Trump's administration has put such langauge up on the cbp web site (last edited April of 2025), doesn't make it factual. What SCOTUS court cases has set this precedents for US citizens that customes has the right to search their devices, and can be denied entry back in to the US? Without such information, such claims could be just lies pissing in the wind.

Can customs refuse entry of a US citizen, no. However customs can hold onto your cell phone.

You can read what the ACLU's viewpoint on the subject and recommendations.
https://www.aclutx.org/en/news/can-border-agents-search-your-electronic-devices-its-complicated

 

[Pens1566]

Just because Trump's administration has put such langauge up on the cbp web site (last edited April of 2025), doesn't make it factual. What SCOTUS court cases has set this precedents for US citizens that customes has the right to search their devices, and can be denied entry back in to the US? Without such information, such claims could be just lies pissing in the wind.

Eh, call me when anyone in ICE would actually follow SCOTUS precedent over their orders.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Can customs refuse entry of a US citizen, no. However customs can hold onto your cell phone.

You can read what the ACLU's viewpoint on the subject and recommendations.
https://www.aclutx.org/en/news/can-border-agents-search-your-electronic-devices-its-complicated

You should probably read your own article. Pay attention to who is stating what they claim they can do, because it's not any set precedence nor is it the courts, specifically the Supreme Court as they haven't weighted in on it yet, opposite of what you claimed in your prior post.

 

[fskimospy]

Eh, call me when anyone in ICE would actually follow SCOTUS precedent over their orders.

The would and have in previous administrations. The problem is this time they know there are no consequences for ignoring it and they will be shielded/immunized for their conduct so they don't care.

Assuming we have free and fair elections in 2028 (again, a big assumption) and Republicans lose I fully expect a mass blanket pardon from Trump for everyone serving in his administration or something to that effect. The criminal exposure is way, way too big for a lot of them.

 

[Brovane]

You should probably read your own article. Pay attention to who is stating what they claim they can do, because it's not any set precedence nor is it the courts, specifically the Supreme Court as they haven't weighted in on it yet, opposite of what you claimed in your prior post.

Feel free to FAFO.

If you’re a citizen, you can’t be denied entry into the country if you refuse to comply with a request to unlock your device or to provide a password. But you might be detained for longer or have your device seized and not returned to you for weeks or months.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Feel free to FAFO.

If you’re a citizen, you can’t be denied entry into the country if you refuse to comply with a request to unlock your device or to provide a password. But you might be detained for longer or have your device seized and not returned to you for weeks or months.

read your fucking article! All you are doing is throwing up what the government is arguing and claiming they can do, and are doing.. NO COURT, specifically the SCOTUS has weighed in on it YET! The article states the ACLU's position, and it straight up says that the government disagrees.. But it doesn't really matter, as your article supports what I said about the information you posted earlier.. that it is what the goverment says, not the courts or set precedence. Aslo, the main thing I am pointing out and arguing is this statement that you made: "From reading this, SCOTUS has given US customs the authority to search a person regardless of citizenship including electronic devices." That statement is 100% false!

 

[Brovane]

read your fucking article! All you are doing is throwing up what the government is arguing and claiming they can do, and are doing.. NO COURT, specifically the SCOTUS has weighed in on it YET! The article states the ACLU's position, and it straight up says that the government disagrees.. But it doesn't really matter, as your article supports what I said about the information you posted earlier.. that it is what the goverment says, not the courts or set precedence. Aslo, the main thing I am pointing out and arguing is this statement that you made: "From reading this, SCOTUS has given US customs the authority to search a person regardless of citizenship including electronic devices." That statement is 100% false!

Ok

 

[dainthomas]

Feel free to FAFO.

If you’re a citizen, you can’t be denied entry into the country if you refuse to comply with a request to unlock your device or to provide a password. But you might be detained for longer or have your device seized and not returned to you for weeks or months.

That's why I always travel with my <$100 Moto G. They can keep it and have fun spending the next fifteen thousand years cracking my thirteen character password.

 

[HomerJS]

I laughted at the picture but at the same time it made me incensed with this abuse of power. Of course Greenman will justify it by saying "it wasn't a citizen" or "people shouldn't make fun our great VP"

Man 'refused entry into US' as border control catch him with bald JD Vance meme

A 21-year-old tourist has described the horrendous treatment he allegedly received after being denied entry to the USA due to a meme depicting JD Vance as bald being found on his phone

www.dublinlive.ie

Having said that I think I've found my new avatar.