A federal court in Virginia is set to hear arguments in a case centred on the CBP journalist phone seizure involving Max Blumenthal, founder and editor-in-chief of the Grayzone, after officers detained him for two and a half hours at Washington Dulles International Airport on 10 July and confiscated two of his mobile devices without explanation.
Detention, seizure and a week in custody
Blumenthal was returning from a journalistic trip to Iran when Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers questioned him about his journalism, who had funded his travel, whether he had received payment for interviews, and whether he intended to return. When he declined to provide his passcodes, arguing that doing so ‘could compromise his constitutional rights and confidential sources,’ an officer told him the devices would be connected to machines to extract their data.
The phones were held for seven days. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), which is representing Blumenthal, filed an emergency motion on 16 July arguing that the seizure and retention of the devices violated the First and Fourth Amendments and the Privacy Protection Act. The government returned the phones one day later, on 17 July.
Blumenthal was also carrying a laptop and a camera at the time, but was permitted to keep both. The ADC argues that detail raises questions about whether officers were specifically seeking access to private contacts, source communications, and other constitutionally protected material. ‘I did nothing but report there. It was very clear that what I was doing was journalistic,’ Blumenthal told the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Government claims mootness; ADC demands forensic records
A CBP officer has 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 CBP did not possess or retain any information from the devices. On that basis, the government is arguing the case is now moot, given the phones have been returned.
The ADC rejects that position. ‘The government cannot evade accountability for the serious constitutional violations alleged here simply by returning the phones after we moved for their return,’ said ADC President and Legal Director Jenin Younes. She pressed further: ‘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.’
At today’s hearing at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the ADC is asking the court to deny the government’s mootness argument, order production of the relevant forensic and chain-of-custody records, and proceed with an evidentiary hearing.
The ADC also notes that although Blumenthal was travelling with a number of other American journalists, he alone was singled out for detention. Days before his return, a public figure publicly called for his arrest on social media and asked that he be questioned about the funding of his Iran trip. CBP’s questioning of Blumenthal followed similar lines. ‘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,’ said ADC Attorney Malak Afaneh.
Afaneh argued the stakes extend well beyond a single case: ‘if 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.’ The outcome of today’s proceedings could shape the legal framework governing border searches of electronic devices belonging to journalists, and the protections afforded to confidential newsgathering material.
