Returning from a vacation to Egypt and Turkey on Sept. 6, Thomas Kennedy, an Argentinian-American writer and immigration advocate, was stopped for questioning by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents at Miami International Airport. According to the lawsuit he filed against the federal government in late September 2026, an agent physically searched his bags, questioned him about the books and magazines he was carrying, and then demanded that he hand over his phone.
The Miami New Times, which first reported the case, published this illustration alongside their coverage of Kennedy's legal action. It visually identifies the human subject of the lawsuit and the legal context.
Kennedy wrote in his complaint that the agent threatened him, saying that if he did not comply, his interrogation would take much longer and they could retain his phone indefinitely. He said he felt he had no choice and handed the phone over. The agent took it away and returned it only after roughly 45 minutes; Kennedy believes data on the phone was copied during that time. He was eventually released with no charges.
Kennedy, a policy consultant for the Florida Immigration Coalition and a contributor to the Miami New Times, says there is a large amount of sensitive personal and professional information on his phone — emails, texts, call records, contacts, and immigration-related data. He is now asking the government to delete whatever was taken.
The legal backdrop: the border exception
Federal courts have long recognized a 'border exception' to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, under which people, bags, and — crucially — electronic devices may be searched at the border without a warrant. That is the authority CBP cites in Kennedy's case.
CBP's own published policy sets a narrower standard for copying device data: the agency says it can copy such information only 'if there is probable cause to believe that the information contains evidence of a violation of law that CBP is authorized to enforce or administer,' or 'if the information relates to immigration, customs, or other enforcement matters.' Kennedy's complaint does not allege that any such standard was met before his phone was taken.
How common is this?
The agency says device searches at the border are very rare. In Fiscal Year 2025, CBP reported searching the electronic devices of 55,318 international travelers out of more than 419 million it processed at ports of entry — about 0.0013%, or less than 0.01%. Even by the agency's own figures, the practice touches a tiny fraction of travelers.
Kennedy's account suggests something more targeted. He believes he was flagged because of his organizing work around immigrants' rights in Florida, noting that agents repeatedly asked what he did for a living and whether he was an immigration attorney. He told the Miami New Times that he believes CBP's AI tracking system flagged him for interrogation, since no one else from his flight appeared to be treated the same way. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen with no criminal record and was traveling back from well-traveled tourist destinations, according to the New Times report.
He also cites a prior incident: in 2021, after speaking out against Governor Ron DeSantis, he says Miami Police were surveilling him and barring him from press conferences. Whether the two episodes are connected is not established by the reporting.
What the lawsuit argues, and what it can't yet prove
The lawsuit calls for the immediate return or destruction of any data taken from Kennedy's phone and argues that agents took adverse actions against him based on his protected speech — subjecting him to secondary inspection and seizing and copying his confidential phone data. In a statement to the Miami New Times, a CBP spokesperson said the agency 'has statutory authority to conduct border searches of electronic devices for all persons entering or departing the U.S., regardless of citizenship,' to enforce laws addressing terrorism, child exploitation, drug- and human-smuggling, visa fraud, and national security threats, and that a border search 'will only include an examination of information that is present on the device at the time it is presented for inspection.'
Several questions remain open. The complaint is Kennedy's account of what happened; it has not been tested in court. Whether data was in fact copied, what was copied, and whether agents acted on a legitimate basis or in retaliation are precisely the issues the lawsuit is designed to resolve. The case was first reported by the Miami New Times, which also published an opinion piece by Kennedy detailing the interrogation.
The broader significance is not just one traveler's experience. The border exception gives agents a power that, by design, does not require a warrant, a judge, or an immediate showing of suspicion — and the very low rate of device searches means the public sees almost no data about who is searched and why. Kennedy's lawsuit, if it proceeds, may force a closer look at where that authority actually stops.