The article is not that clear in one way. Does this only apply to non-US Citizens ?
>“The border-search exception is grounded in the recognized right of the sovereign to control, subject to substantive limitations imposed by the Constitution, who and what may enter the country.” Id. at 620. Because “[t]he Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border,” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152 (2004), “searches made at the border, pursuant to the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border,” Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616.
https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/24-960_complete_o...
> Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States...board and search for non-citizens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border.
from https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
> Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population, over 213 million people, reside within the region that CBP considers falling within the 100-mile border zone, according to the 2020 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.
Apart from that, an airport is a comparatively small area of land that is magnitudes easier to monitor than a border that only exists as a thousands of miles long line on the map, therefore the 100 miles rule should not be applied. And everyone getting off an international flight in the USA has already been searched multiple times.
I mean, that could have been just one person's attempt to justify them operating outside their legal authority. Or it could have been what they were told to say, meaning it was somewhat more official policy (or at least official smokescreen du jour). At any rate, it has been claimed, at least once, not in court but to the press.
I would be delighted for it to not have been an actual administration claim, ever.
As it is the 100 mile zone sweeps in most of the population.
“Today’s decision leaves Americans’ most sensitive information open to search at the border without any suspicion at all,”
I think this is just an extension of a general we, as government officials protecting American freedoms, can do what we want and will justify it later if we have to policy.
It should probably be noted that this specific case led to a conviction of an actual crime (Bank fraud and money laundering).
That's pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. Of course a lot more crimes would get prosecuted if we lived in a total police state.
I should probably have said this in my original comment.