Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

George Anibowei v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 20-10059 · judgment June 19, 2023


Certiorari denied · January 8, 2024
Pre-decision estimate: 36% cert probability (95% interval 28%–45%)

Before the decision, about 8.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Fifth Circuit decision below, and a petition filed soon after the judgment below.

Question presented

This case presents a sharp, recognized, and enduring circuit conflict regarding the application of the Fourth Amendment to cellphone searches at the United States border. This question is of significant importance, evident from the United States’ petition to this Court for review in United States v. Cano, No. 20-1043. Petitioner, a Texas immigration attorney, has faced repeated searches of his cellphone without a warrant. Border agents searched his phone every time he traveled internationally for several years, no fewer than four times while this lawsuit was pending. The first search was a “forensic” search in which government agents downloaded and kept the data on his phone, including communications protected by the attorney-client privilege. Later searches were “manual” searches in which government agents scrolled through text messages, emails, and other private information on the phone by hand. This pattern of searches has compelled petitioner to refrain from carrying his work phone during international travel for over four years now. Four years ago, petitioner sought a preliminary injunction that would accomplish two key objectives: (1) prohibit the defendants from conducting additional warrantless searches of his cellphone, and (2) mandate the destruction of the data unlawfully extracted from the phone. The district court denied the motion, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The question presented is: Whether the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures entitles petitioner to a preliminary injunction against additional warrantless searches of his cellphone when he crosses the United States border. (i)

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Andrew Timothy Tutt
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer

For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage

Proceedings

  1. Jan 08 2024
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Dec 20 2023
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
  3. Dec 18 2023
    Reply of petitioner George Anibowei filed. (Distributed)
  4. Dec 06 2023
    Brief of respondents Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. in opposition filed.
  5. Nov 01 2023
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 6, 2023.
  6. Oct 31 2023
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 6, 2023 to December 6, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. Oct 05 2023
    Response Requested. (Due November 6, 2023)
  8. Oct 04 2023
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023.
  9. Oct 02 2023
    Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. (Distributed)
  10. Sep 26 2023
    Waiver of right of respondent Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. to respond filed.
  11. Aug 30 2023
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 2, 2023)