No. ________ IN THE Supreme Courtd of the United States ZAINAB MERCHANT; SUHAIB ALLABABIDI; SIDD BIKKANNAVAR; AARON GACH; ISMAIL ABDEL-RASOUL aka ISMA’IL KUSHKUSH; DIANE MAYE ZORRI; MOHAMMED AKRAM SHIBLY; MATTHEW WRIGHT, —v.— Petitioners, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, in his official capacity; TROY A. MILLER, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE COMMISSIONER OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, in his official capacity; TAE D. JOHNSON, ACTING DIRECTOR OF U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, in his official capacity, Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Adam Schwartz Esha Bhandari Sophia Cope Counsel of Record Saira Hussain Hugh Handeyside ELECTRONIC FRONTIER Nathan Freed Wessler FOUNDATION Ben Wizner 815 Eddy Street Hina Shamsi San Francisco, CA 94109 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES Jessie J. Rossman UNION FOUNDATION AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 125 Broad Street UNION FOUNDATION OF New York, NY 10004 MASSACHUSETTS, INC. (212) 549-2500 211 Congress Street [email protected] Boston, MA 02110 David D. Cole AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 QUESTION PRESENTED Does the Fourth Amendment require that searches of electronic devices at the U.S. border be conducted pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause, or at least pursuant to an officer’s determination of reasonable suspicion that the device contains digital contraband? i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING In addition to the parties appearing in the caption of the case on the cover page, Ghassan Alasaad, Nadia Alasaad, and Jérémie Dupin were plaintiffs in the proceedings below. RELATED PROCEEDINGS Alasaad v. Mayorkas, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Nos. 20-1077, 20-1081. Corrected Opinion issued February 9, 2021; Alasaad v. Nielsen, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:17-cv-11730-DJC. Memorandum and Order on parties’ cross- motions for summary judgment issued November 12, 2019, and Judgment entered November 21, 2019. Judgment following mandate issued by the Court of Appeals entered on April 21, 2021. Alasaad v. Nielsen, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:17-cv-11730-DJC. Memorandum and Order denying motion to dismiss issued May 9, 2018. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ........................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... vi PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ............. 1 OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED ........ 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ............... 11 I. THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS ARE DIVIDED ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT’S REQUIREMENTS FOR BORDER SEARCHES OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES .......................................................... 11 A. The Circuits Have Adopted Conflicting Rules on the Permissible Bounds of Border Searches of Electronic Devices ...................................................... 12 1. The First Circuit ............................... 12 2. The Ninth Circuit ............................. 13 3. The Fourth Circuit ............................ 13 4. The Eleventh Circuit ........................ 14 B. The Circuits Are Divided on Whether and What Level of Individualized Suspicion Is Required ............................... 15 iii C. The Circuits Are Divided on the Permissible Scope of Warrantless Border Device Searches ............................ 16 II. THIS CASE PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT AND RECURRING QUESTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVACY RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE .................................... 17 III. THIS CASE IS AN IDEAL VEHICLE TO RESOLVE THESE CONFLICTS ..................... 20 IV. THE DECISION BELOW IS INCORRECT .... 23 A. The First Circuit Erred in Holding that a Warrant Is Not Required for Electronic Device Searches at the Border ........................................................ 24 1. Riley’s Reasoning Compels a Warrant Requirement for Border Searches of Electronic Devices ............................. 24 2. This Court Has Left Open the Possibility That Certain Border Searches Require a Warrant ............ 30 3. The First Circuit Misconstrued This Court’s Precedent on Warrant Exceptions ......................................... 30 B. The First Circuit Erred by Not Holding, in the Alternative, that all Device Searches at the Border Require Reasonable Suspicion that the Device Contains Digital Contraband ................... 32 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 35 iv APPENDIX Appendix A, Court of appeals opinion, Feb. 9, 2021 ....................................................... 1a Appendix B, District court judgment, Nov. 21, 2019 ................................................... 29a Appendix C, District court summary judgment memorandum and order, Nov. 12, 2019......... 32a Appendix D, District court memorandum and order denying motion to dismiss, May 9, 2018 ........ 92a Appendix E, Plaintiffs’ supplemental statement of undisputed material facts, July 12, 2019 ... 156a Appendix F, Plaintiffs’ response and reply in support of statement of undisputed material facts, July 3, 2019 ......................................... 159a Appendix G, Homeland Security Investigations legal update, May 11, 2018........................... 284a Appendix H, U.S. Customs and Border Protection policy directive, Jan. 4, 2018 ...... 286a Appendix I, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy directive, Aug. 18, 2009 ................................................ 311a Appendix J, District court final judgment, April 21, 2021 ................................................ 332a v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) ............................................... 31 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) ..................................... 18, 19 Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). .............................................. 26 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) ................................................. 27 Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (2018) ........................................... 32 Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491(1983) ................................................ 18 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) ............................................... 18 Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) ................................................. 18 Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) ........................................ passim United States v. Caballero, 178 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (S.D. Cal. 2016) .................. 20 United States v. 12 200-Foot Reels of Super 8mm. Film, 413 U.S. 123 (1973)...................................... 27 United States v. Aigbekaen, 943 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2019) ........................... 14, 16 United States v. Cano, 934 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2019) ........................ passim vi United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................... 6, 12, 13 United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004) ............................................... 30 United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) ............................................... 18 United States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2018) .......................... passim United States v. Molina-Isidoro, 884 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2018) ................................. 28 United States v. Molina-Isidoro, 267 F. Supp. 3d 900 (W.D. Tex. 2016) .................. 20 United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985) ........................................ passim United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363 (1971) ............................................... 27 United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018) ................. 14, 15, 16 United States v. Vergara, 884 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2018) ...................... passim CONSTITUTION U.S. Const. amend. IV ....................................... passim OTHER AUTHORITIES CBP Statement on Border Search of Electronic Devices (Oct. 30, 2019), https://perma.cc/JX8K- BN5B ........................................................................ 7 Pet. for a Writ of Cert., United States v. Cano, No. 20-1043 (Jan. 29, 2021) ................................... 23 vii PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioners Zainab Merchant, Suhaib Allababidi, Sidd Bikkannavar, Aaron Gach, Ismail Abdel-Rasoul aka Isma’il Kushush, Diane Maye Zorri, Mohammed Akram Shibly, and Matthew Wright respectfully petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a) is reported at Alasaad v. Mayorkas, 988 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2021). The district court memorandum and order on cross-motions for summary judgment (Pet. App. 32a) is reported at Alasaad v. Nielsen, 419 F. Supp. 3d 142 (D. Mass. 2019). The district court judgment entering injunctive and declaratory relief (Pet. App. 29a) is not reported. The district court judgment vacating injunctive and declaratory relief (Pet. App. 332a) is not reported. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The court of appeals issued its decision on February 9, 2021 (Pet. App. 1a). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). CONSTITUTIONAL