ADC Secures Return of Seized Electronic Devices as Federal Court Orders Discovery Into CBP’s Actions in Imam v. Mullin

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 26, 2026
[email protected]

Washington, D.C. | The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) secured a significant victory following an emergency hearing in Imam v. Mullin, after the federal government confirmed that all four electronic devices seized from psychiatric nurse practitioner Muhammad Numaan Imam and his wife, software engineer Khadijah Mansoor, had been shipped back to the couple. During the October 23 hearing, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema also ordered the government to provide detailed, sworn accounts of what Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials did with the devices, including whether they were unlocked, searched, or had any information extracted from them.

ADC President and Legal Director Jenin Younes, who argued the motion before the Court, emphasized that this case reflects a broader pattern of federal authorities exploiting the border-search exception to gain access to personal electronic devices without adequate legal justification.

“The government is really abusing the border search exception to get access to people’s electronic devices, and I think these cases illustrate that,” Younes told the Court.

Younes further argued that the seizure of Mansoor’s devices “looked quite punitive,” highlighting that officers allegedly confiscated them in response to her husband’s refusal to provide his passcode. She pressed the Court to require detailed property logs and sworn attestations from the individuals who actually handled the devices, rather than relying on generalized assurances from CBP supervisors.

The hearing followed ADC’s emergency motion, filed October 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, challenging CBP’s seizure of the couple’s two iPhones and two laptops at Washington Dulles International Airport on October 16. The devices were confiscated after Imam refused to provide his phone’s passcode, explaining that it contained confidential patient information protected by his professional obligations.

During the hearing, government counsel confirmed that Mansoor’s devices had been mailed on October 17 and reportedly delivered on October 21, while Imam’s devices were shipped on October 22. Importantly, government counsel acknowledged that Imam’s devices had been referred to technical assistance personnel at Department of Homeland Security headquarters and other CBP personnel for potential inspection, but could not explain whether officials had successfully accessed the devices.

Judge Brinkema raised serious Fourth Amendment concerns, citing the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Belmonte Cardozo, which distinguishes routine manual searches of electronic devices at the border from more intrusive forensic examinations. Addressing the government’s assertion that reasonable suspicion alone could justify a forensic search, Judge Brinkema stated:

“There could not possibly be a proper search of that phone without Court permission, in my view.”

The Court further established that it had no record of any application for a search warrant or judicial authorization to search Imam’s devices. Government counsel confirmed that she was unaware of any such application.

Judge Brinkema expressed particular concern about the possibility that federal agents had accessed confidential mental health patient records. The Court emphasized that the government had no legitimate basis to examine sensitive medical information unrelated to a lawful enforcement purpose and agreed with ADC’s demand for firsthand evidence establishing precisely what occurred while the devices were in federal custody.

The Court directed the government to provide, by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 26, a complete accounting of its handling of Imam’s devices, supported by sworn attestations under penalty of perjury from personnel with firsthand knowledge. The required disclosures must explain whether the devices were unlocked, what methods were used, what information was accessed or obtained, what was done with that information, and what measures, if any, protected privileged material.

The Court also directed that any information obtained from the devices be returned to the plaintiffs unless the government establishes a legitimate law enforcement basis for retaining it consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Addressing Mansoor’s devices, which government counsel claimed officers had never attempted to access, Judge Brinkema questioned the justification for confiscating them in the first place:

“Then why were they seized?”

The Court required the government to address Mansoor’s devices in its sworn submissions as well, including providing an attestation if no effort was made to unlock them or inspect their contents.

The Court’s decision represents another significant step in ADC’s growing legal effort to challenge warrantless searches and seizures of electronic devices at U.S. borders. In July, ADC filed an emergency motion and subsequent federal lawsuit in Blumenthal v. Mullin after CBP seized journalist Max Blumenthal’s phones at Dulles International Airport. Although the devices were returned, Judge Brinkema authorized discovery to determine what federal officials had done with them while in government custody. In September, ADC filed a similar motion in Shehadeh v. Mullin after CBP confiscated Palestinian American attorney Jalal “Jay” Shehadeh’s phone at Newark Airport despite warnings that it contained privileged attorney-client communications. His phone was also subsequently returned.

ADC also filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Anibowei v. Blanche, urging the Court to establish a clear nationwide constitutional standard governing searches of electronic devices at the border. ADC’s brief was one of ten arguing that the Supreme Court should hear the case because of the significant privacy interests at stake, increasing frequency with which these searches are occurring, and fact that different courts are reaching different conclusions.

Together, these cases underscore ADC’s commitment to challenging the abuse of border-search authority and ensuring that government agencies cannot evade judicial scrutiny simply by returning confiscated devices. The return of physical property does not resolve the constitutional questions raised by efforts to access, copy, or retain the sensitive personal information stored within it.