ADC Challenges Warrantless Seizure of Palestinian American Attorney’s Phone at Newark International Airport

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 30, 2026

WASHINGTON, D.C. | The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) filed a time-sensitive federal motion demanding the immediate return of Miami-based attorney, Jalal “Jay” Shehadeh’s, phone after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized the device at Newark Liberty International Airport despite his repeated refusal to consent to a search, warning border officials that his phone contained personal information, and attorney-client privileged communications involving active legal cases. The phone remained locked.

The government had not identified a warrant, criminal charge, investigation or other judicial process authorizing the continued retention or search of the phone as of the filing. Shehadeh, a U.S. citizen, returned to the United States from Palestine on September 17 and was referred to secondary inspection at Newark. CBP officers told him he had been selected for a “random customs check” and questioned him for roughly four hours about his travel and family, causing him to miss his connecting flight.

ADC’s motion, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), asks the Court to order the phone returned immediately, require the government to disclose whether it searched, imaged, extracted, copied, retained or disseminated information from the device, and protect any attorney-client privileged or confidential material obtained from it.

“What happened to our client demonstrates exactly why this country needs a clear federal standard governing searches and seizures of electronic devices at the border,” said ADC President and Legal Director Jenin Younes. “The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from searching individuals’ papers and effects. The border search exception, which was really crafted to prevent the importation of large amounts of contraband, has incorrectly been expanded by law enforcement and some courts to mean that the government can search the phone of any individual who has chosen to travel internationally. That cannot be the law, especially as the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the significant privacy interests individuals have in smartphones.”

ADC client Jay Shehadeh said, “One of the primary tenets of our constitution is the protection against government overreach, especially in the area of search and seizure. The government is setting a dangerous precedent today by making Americans’ most private of possessions, our phones, the subject of warrantless searches without any justifiable reason, and as is too often the case, Arabs and Muslims are the primary victims. I’m grateful for ADC’s tireless fight to protect our American civil liberties and constitutional protections. We cannot allow these abuses to continue unaddressed.”

Shehadeh’s case is the latest front in ADC’s broader legal challenge to government searches of Americans’ electronic devices at the border.

In July, CBP seized two phones belonging to journalist Max Blumenthal at Dulles International Airport after he returned from a reporting trip to Iran and declined to provide his passcodes. ADC filed an emergency motion seeking their return and later brought a federal lawsuit challenging the seizure and attempted forensic search under the First and Fourth Amendments. Blumenthal’s phones were swiftly returned.

Despite the government’s objections, the federal court in Blumenthal v. Mullin ordered discovery into what federal officials did with the devices while they were held. During the hearing, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema raised serious Fourth Amendment concerns and stated that an advanced search involving equipment connected to a cellphone would require a warrant under Fourth Circuit precedent.

ADC then filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court on Blumenthal’s behalf in Anibowei v. Blanche, urging the Court to resolve conflicting standards among federal appellate courts and establish a clear nationwide rule governing searches of electronic devices at the border.

The organization will continue its litigation in Shehadeh v. Mullin, Blumenthal v. Mullin and its national advocacy for a clear constitutional standard governing electronic-device searches at the border.