Tag: posts

From Hoover’s post today (and see also our colleague John Cochrane’s post about Hall’s work):

Robert E. Hall, the Robert and Carole McNeil Endowed Professor in Economics and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Emeritus, and emeritus professor of economics in the School of Humanities and Sciences, is the recipient of the 2026 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

Hall was recognized with the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for his contributions to the “microeconomic foundations of macroeconomic stabilization,” alongside economist Michael Woodford, with whom he will share the approximately $1.2 million prize.

“Robert E. Hall and Michael Woodford are awarded this year’s prize in economic sciences for demonstrating how economic models could be reconstructed to revitalise stabilisation policy,” according to an announcement from the Nobel Committee. “Rather than basing the models on statistical links between macroeconomic variables, such as inflation, production and consumption, they chose to build them on a microeconomic foundation. This encompasses an understanding for how the total mass of individual households and businesses affect the economy through their actions.”

“This is a wonderful surprise,” Hall said on Monday morning. “I’ve spent my career trying to understand how the economy works, following interesting questions wherever they led. When I thought I had a new idea, the next step was to find out whether it was actually new, whether it was right, and whether it mattered. I’ve been fortunate to have extraordinary colleagues and coauthors to help me sort that out, and working with them has been the greatest pleasure of my career.”

Robert E. Hall, 83, is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Econometric Society and the Society of Labor Economists. Hall is an applied economist with interests in technology, competition, employment issues, and economic policy. He is a frequent contributor to discussions of national economic policy, including monetary policy, fiscal policy, and competition policy. Hall’s research focuses on levels of activity and stock market valuations in market economies and on the economics of high technology, particularly the Internet.

Bob Hall is one of the most distinguished economists of his generation, whose work has profoundly shaped our understanding of economic growth, employment, and the forces that drive the American economy,” said Hoover Institution Director Condoleezza Rice. “He has been instrumental in the way policy leaders think about the free market economy. This great honor is a well deserved recognition of a remarkable career, and we at Hoover are proud to call him a colleague.

“Bob Hall’s creative and impactful work illuminates the connections between how households and firms behave and the outcomes of the economy as a whole, said Stanford President Jonathan Levin. “His insights have changed how governments and central banks respond to economic volatility. I’m thrilled that he has been honored with this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics.”

“Hall has made pioneering contributions to our understanding of household consumption, employment fluctuations, and market power,” said Debra Satz, the Vernon R. and Lysbeth Warren Anderson Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences. “It is wonderful to see his lifetime of work in applied economics recognized by the Nobel committee.”

Along with Hoover colleague Alvin Rabushka, Hall is an active proponent of the flat tax. Their article in the Wall Street Journal in December 1981 was the starting point of an upsurge of interest in the flat tax. This led to their book, The Flat Tax. The pair was recognized in Money magazine’s Money Hall of Fame for their contributions to financial innovation over the past twenty years.

Hall also serves as director of the research program on economic fluctuations and growth of the National Bureau of Economic Research, an interuniversity research organization. He is chairman of the bureau’s Committee on Business Cycle Dating, which maintains the semiofficial chronology of the US business cycle.

Hall has advised a number of government agencies on national economic policy, including the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, and the Federal Reserve Board. He served on President-elect Ronald Reagan’s Task Force on Inflation Policy and was a member of the National Presidential Advisory Committee on Productivity. He has testified on numerous occasions before congressional committees concerning national economic policy. He presented the Ely Lecture to the American Economic Association in 2001.

Before coming to Stanford, Hall was a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an assistant professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

Born in Palo Alto, California, he attended school in Palo Alto and Los Angeles, received his BA from the University of California at Berkeley and his PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hall is married to economist Susan Woodward and lives in Menlo Park, California.

“Stanford’s Economics Department and the Hoover Institution gave me a dream job: the freedom and time to do the research I wanted to do,” Hall said. “The taxpayers of California gave me an excellent education in the public schools and at Berkeley, and the federal government paid for my graduate education at MIT. I hope they will regard this as a satisfactory return on their investment. I thank my family, especially my wonderful wife and coauthor, Susan, and congratulate Michael Woodford, whose work has taught me a great deal.”

The post Congratulations to the Hoover Institution's Robert E. Hall, on His Economics Nobel Prize appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/h4NWtJq
via IFTTT

Federal law enforcement officials in Minneapolis announced at a press conference last week that FBI agents arrested a Minnesota teenager plotting to commit a mass shooting at the Mall of America.

Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud, an 18-year-old American-born citizen of Somali descent, was arrested in a public park on October 6 by FBI agents immediately after he allegedly paid an undercover agent posing as a member of the Islamic terrorist group ISIS $600 for an AK-47 rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition. The arrest was the culmination of a two-year investigation into Mohamud, who allegedly planned to commit a mass shooting at the mega-mall on October 24.

According to the criminal complaint filed against Mohamud, he exchanged hundreds of messages with a confidential FBI informant expressing his desire to travel to Somalia to join ISIS, but lacking enough money to travel, he eventually settled for an alleged plot to attack the Mall of America because it was owned by Jews.

“I want to do this, I am very serious I don’t care about anything in the world, I am 100% committed to the cause of dying for the sake of Allah only,” Mohamud allegedly wrote in one text message, according to the complaint.

Christopher Dotson, a special agent running the FBI’s Minneapolis field office said at a press conference that Mohamud’s messages “document the idolization of ideologically motivated violence, a callous disregard for the sanctity of human life, a blind hatred of people of other faiths, and a cold commitment to carrying out his vision of violence in our community.”

As I explained in a 2022 Reason magazine feature, “It’s (Almost) Always the Feds,” the FBI has a long history of using its sprawling network of paid informants to locate and bait would-be radicals in undercover sting operations.

The FBI’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), created in 2011 to stop domestic recruitment by foreign terrorist organizations, has focused heavily on Somali immigrant communities in Minnesota and elsewhere because of Somalia’s links to ISIS and al-Shabab, two Islamic terrorist groups.

An ISIS-affiliated account posted a video in 2015 calling for an attack on the Mall of America. In 2016, a Somali man in the U.S. on a refugee visa stabbed 10 shoppers and employees at a St. Cloud mall. Last year, a Minneapolis man was charged with attempting to join ISIS.

However, the sort of young men who usually get onto the FBI’s extremist radar have grand and violent ambitions but limited means to carry them out. They tend to be unemployed or marginally employed, sometimes still living with their parents, and socially awkward.

In one text exchange, the confidential informant asked Mohamud how school was going.

“It’s terrible man but I gotta keep doing it and if I fail its straight to just killin kuffar [a derogatory term for non-Muslims],” Mohamud responded, according to screenshots included in the criminal complaint . “And im already failing so if I don’t pass in a yr ill probably save up for a gun.”

The informant responded with the “grinning squinty face” emoji.

Mohamud continued to chat with confidential informants, praising terrorist attacks and sharing terrorist propaganda videos, according to the complaint. He didn’t have a phone, so he had to use his sibling’s computers and tablets to chat with informants. Last month, he recorded a video of himself pledging allegiance to ISIS on his little brother’s iPad.

Despite persistent criticisms from civil liberties groups that the FBI is in many cases manufacturing terror plots to ensnare young men with limited to no ability to carry them out, the federal government has been enormously successful in securing convictions because of the high bar for defendants to prove entrapment.

The FBI’s use of paid informants and these sting tactics have resulted in hundreds of convictions since 9/11, but it’s also created long-term credibility problems for the bureau, especially when administrations have used those criminal cases to advance their political narratives.

For example, in a 2024 speech condemning political violence, former President Joe Biden cited the plot to kidnap Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. However, text messages and other records uncovered by defense attorneys during the case showed that the farcical plot was in large part concocted and encouraged by paid FBI informants and their bureau handlers.

“We have a saying in my office,” one FBI special agent told a confidential informant in the Whitmer case. “Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.”

The CVE program and related counterterrorism initiatives have also subjected tens of thousands of Somali refugees and other ethnic and religious minorities to heightened surveillance and infiltration by government informants, sowing distrust and fear, all based on a relatively small handful of incidents. Reason‘s Eric Boehm wrote in 2018 about how Minnesota’s peaceful and entrepreneurial Somali refugee communities had become a domestic front in the war on terror, as well as microcosm of the national debate over immigration and national security.

None of this is to say the investigation into Mohamud was unwarranted, or that he wouldn’t have been able to eventually get a gun absent the FBI’s assistance. Nor is it a statement on his guilt or innocence, although he is as a matter of law innocent until proven guilty. It is a reminder to read carefully and wait for all the details to come out whenever the FBI announces it has thwarted another terrorist plot.

The post FBI Foils Plot To Attack Mall of America With FBI-Provided AK-47 appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/w0grAo7
via IFTTT

This week, editors Peter Suderman,  Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie are joined by reporter Reem Ibrahim to discuss Vice President J.D. Vance’s bizarre definition of socialism. They examine whether Vance genuinely believes what he’s saying or is attempting to redefine socialism to avoid acknowledging the Trump administration’s own big-government policies.

Next, the panel discusses America’s growing $2 trillion deficit, the rising cost of Social Security and Medicare, and the generational divide between older Americans receiving government benefits and younger workers paying for them. The editors also examine youth protests in France, where students are demanding improvements to public schools despite the country’s already extensive government spending. They then discuss allegations that U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle offered political access in exchange for help paying off personal credit card debt and what the controversy reveals about government corruption. Finally, a listener asks about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s plan to publicly broadcast an execution and whether turning capital punishment into a spectacle could encourage extremism.

 

0:00—Vance rebrands socialism.

08:48—Largest budget deficit ever

25:50—Youth protests in France

38:15—Listener question on public executions

46:25—Guilfoyle’s corruption scandal

56:20—Weekly cultural recommendations

 

Upcoming Reason Events

The World Premiere of Escaping Venezuela, October 13

 

Mentioned in the podcast:

“J.D. Vance Accidentally Comes Out as a Socialist,” by Billy Binion

“Trump Has Been Trampling Free Speech for More Than 40 Years—and It Keeps Getting Worse,” by Jacob Sullum

“Protesters in France and Spain Are Angry at Government Failure—and Demanding More Government,” by Reem Ibrahim

“The Great British Exodus: Taxes, Housing Costs, and Terrible Healthcare Are Driving Young Brits Away,” by Reem Ibrahim

“The Federal Government Just Posted the Largest Annual Budget Deficit Since COVID,” by Eric Boehm

“Livestreaming an Execution,” by Liz Wolfe

“Kimberly Guilfoyle’s Grift Is at Least as Offensive as Hunter Biden’s,” by Robby Soave

The post J.D. Vance Is Playing Dumb About Socialism appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/CS1NVoR
via IFTTT

A text message containing an image of nude Shrek holding his ogre…appendage…loomed over an Ohio courtroom on Friday, during the prosecution’s closing argument in a two-day trial that captured the attention of Ohioans, free speech advocates, and the national media.

“The question is whether you should be entitled to a little bit of privacy and not sent that message,” said prosecutor Matthew Lallo.

The message at the center of this trial was sent by Ohio Substack writer D.J. Byrnes (a.k.a. “The Rooster“). Back in May, the blogger sent the racy image of Shrek to state Sen. Jerry Cirino (R–Kirtland). According to Signal Ohio, the blogger was arrested on June 1 after Cirino reported the messages to the Kirtland Police Department. The outlet reported that Byrnes spent 23 hours in jail before posting bail on a misdemeanor telecommunications harassment charge. 

According to The New York Times, Byrnes sent the “gloating text messages” after Cirino announced he would no longer run as state Senate president. 

An accompanying text to Cirino said, “Good to see you finally made your final humiliation public, Young Mussolini!” Byrnes’ message also added, “THE PATRIOTS CAUCUS sends its regards!!!!!!!!!!!”  

During Byrnes’ trial, which began on Thursday, his defense team argued that the texts were intended as political statements, and they did not constitute harassment. The defense emphasized that Byrnes had frequently criticized Cirino in the past, and the texts were sent in the context of Cirino withdrawing from his bid for state Senate president. 

“The point is clear,” said Byrnes’ attorney during closing statements. “Shrek was exposing himself and so was Senator Cirino, finally exposing himself as he couldn’t win the presidency even though months earlier he had predicted that it would be wrapped up by March.” 

On Friday, the jury sided with the prosecution, finding Byrnes guilty of telecommunications harassment. Byrnes was sentenced to pay court costs and a $200 fine, reported The Ohio Capital Journal.  

“This wasn’t a free speech issue; this was a harassment statute that I believed he was in violation of,” Cirino said after the verdict, according to the outlet. 

On Monday, Axios reported that the judge barred Byrnes from raising a First Amendment defense in the trial, “leaving the defense to argue that Byrnes’ messages did not satisfy the statutory definition of harassment.” 

Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, tells Reason he was not surprised by the verdict given the “broad and vague language of Ohio’s telecommunications harassment statute.” The statute, he notes, “criminalizes sending even a single electronic communication ‘with purpose to harass, intimidate, or abuse’ the recipient,” which “sweeps in a vast amount of constitutionally protected speech.”

“It’s easy to imagine the same law being used to prosecute social media users who reply to government officials’ posts with harsh or vulgar criticism,” he says. “If Byrnes appeals, he should and likely will challenge the law’s constitutionality.”

And the Shrek saga does not seem to be over. According to Axios, Byrnes has “confirmed plans to appeal the ruling.” What began as a “Shrext” may end up becoming a serious free speech matter for Ohio’s appellate courts. 

The post Thinking of Sending a Nude Shrek Pic to an Ohio Official? You Could Be Found Guilty of Harassment. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/jhIqVZX
via IFTTT

Pretty Woman is the best romantic comedy of all time. In it, the actress Julia Roberts plays Vivian, a Los Angeles prostitute who stumbles into a weeklong escort gig for a well-to-do businessman. This requires a new wardrobe, ideally something where her legs are covered less by thigh-high boots and more by, well, actual clothes. Upon entering a shop on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, it is quickly apparent she is not welcome.

She later returns—this time looking less hooker with a heart of gold, more polo match—to deliver one of the more legendary lines in movie history. “Big mistake,” she tells the saleswoman who spurned her, flexing her shopping bags full of spoils. “Big. HUGE!”

Life imitates art; art imitates life. Accordingly, we now have a new Vivian, updated for the 21st century: an American Idol winner shopping not for Chanel and Valentino but for a yellow animatronic bird (naturally). This not being 1990, she also has social media.

“Just drove all the way to Brooklyn to check out this store I thought looked really rad and had a few things in mind to buy and literally was looked at as if I couldn’t afford it and was told he could find something comparable for me,” the singer Kelly Clarkson wrote on X. “Wow, dude. You’re an idiot and just lost a huge sale. But y’all should go check out Art of Play in Brooklyn if you enjoy being treated like Julia Roberts [sic] character in Pretty Woman.”

Just drove all the way to Brooklyn to check out this store I thought looked really rad and had a few things in mind to buy and literally was looked at as if I couldn’t afford it and was told he could find something comparable for me. Wow, dude. You’re an idiot and just lost a…

— Kelly Clarkson (@kellyclarkson) October 10, 2026

As of this writing, that post has been seen about 44 million times. It has inspired a news cycle, a public response from Art of Play, a counter-response from Clarkson, a counter-counter-response from Art of Play, and a lot of negative online reviews from people who have probably never been. It is a stark example of how Vivians of times past have been brought into the present. A comeuppance moment—”Big mistake!”—in response to an unpleasant experience with an allegedly rude employee can now become a national story that puts a small business in the crosshairs or the limelight, depending on whom you ask.

Some additional details, for your edification: The store noted that Clarkson wanted “Molly,” that crooning fowl, which “is permanently attached to the wall and isn’t for sale.” Drat. Clarkson: “So the whole conversation we had when I asked you if it was for sale whilst pointing to the price tag hanging on the wall with the title Singing Bird didn’t happen as you elevator eyed me saying in a condescending tone ‘yes, it’s for sale but it costs 15,000 dollars so if you’d like me to find something comparable for you I can.’ That all never happened and now it’s not for sale.”

Now we’re really cooking. The store: “We explained that while Molly is permanently attached to the wall and serves as a de facto mascot for our shop, a nearly identical automaton is owned by the creator of the machines, a brilliant artist named Bliss Kolb who lives in Seattle. He told us he would be willing to part with Molly’s twin for $15,000.” Art of Play also said it “explained all of this to Kelly Clarkson” and “offered to show her a different singing bird automaton…that she could have taken home with her that day” for the low, low price of $2,000. A steal. But, alas, “She did not stick around long enough to see it.”

So we have overlapping but ultimately divergent accounts of this era-defining, avian warfare, which was almost certainly captured by a camera on the ceiling. Curious.

Let us acknowledge a few things. For one: How iconic is it that Clarkson prefaced her beef with the fact that she “drove all the way to Brooklyn,” likely from Manhattan (where she keeps an apartment), as if she had just crossed the Darién Gap? We’re talking approximately 35 minutes from Central Park to Cobble Hill. There is a storied history of extreme melodrama in great American cities when traversing neighborhood boundaries—try convincing an Angeleno to leave West Hollywood for lunch in Koreatown. Clarkson is truly an American idol.

For two: Why are we as a nation litigating a pop star’s journey to buy a warbling robot? I now know as much about the origin story of Molly—the bird that broke America—as I do my sister’s, who shares the same name. (It’s a good name.) I will give Clarkson the benefit of the doubt that this employee may have been less than bubbly. It is Brooklyn, after all, where icy customer service from women with very short bangs and vocal fry is sometimes seen as an asset. But did we really need to mobilize millions of people against a random toy store because of an unfortunate five-minute exchange? Could Clarkson not have left a Google review? (Speaking of those, the fakes have been steadily disappearing, although a new evaluation from “Baba Baka” instructs users not to patronize the store because the owner “called me slurs.” I have my doubts.)

What made Vivian’s moment on Rodeo Drive so captivating? It was personal. She marches into the store—eyes trained on the elitist clerk with the braided updo, the short bangs of the late ’80s and early ’90s—and tells it like it is. She does not marshal all of Los Angeles into the store to do it with her.

Clarkson has the right, of course, to say whatever she wants, however she wants. But that does not necessarily make it wise. Her effort legitimately may backfire—despite the avalanche of online hate, Art of Play has gained thousands of social media followers and will likely become a brief destination, even out of morbid fascination. In general, though, unbecoming moments and misunderstandings between individuals do not need to become seismic—and potentially life-ruining—national affairs, as we’ve seen happen from time to time over the last several years. We can turn back.

Not this time, though. It’s too late. The nation has been brought into the discussion, and the nation therefore needs closure. Art of Play is thus cosmically obligated to release security footage of the exchange. Was Clarkson more Vivian Ward or Veruca Salt? ROLL THE TAPES!

The post Release the Kelly Clarkson Tapes appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/W48Pvft
via IFTTT

On Monday, CBS News reported that federal agents searched the Washington, D.C., home of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.), as part of an ongoing investigation that “centers on Omar’s immigration paperwork.” 

In a statement to the Associated Press, the Justice Department said agents from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)—an office within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that conducts federal criminal investigations into immigration fraud and identity and benefits fraud—”executed a judicially authorized search warrant” as “part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.” 

The search warrant reportedly “lists a series of potential immigration crimes under investigation, including false statements and fraud in immigration paperwork, as well as a general conspiracy charge,” according to The New York Times. The Times reported that federal officials are also investigating “whether Ms. Omar derived citizenship from a father who may have been ineligible to obtain naturalized status.” In a statement, Omar called the investigation an “outrageous abuse of power and an unprecedented escalation in the weaponization of federal law enforcement to target political enemies,” stating she did “nothing wrong.”

Omar has been in the Justice Department’s crosshairs since January, when President Donald Trump announced that the department and Congress were “looking at ‘Congresswoman’ Illhan Omar, who left Somalia with NOTHING, and is now reportedly worth more than 44 Million Dollars.” 

Trump was referencing an investigation by the House Ethics Committee, based on a 2025 financial disclosure form showing she and her husband held assets worth between $6 million and $30 million, a notable increase from her previous filings. Omar later filed an amended disclosure form that showed the assets were worth $18,004 to $95,000 after accounting for liabilities. However, in September, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Office of Congressional Conduct—which reviews allegations against House members and their staff—voted 5–1 to recommend that the House Ethics Committee dismiss the allegations. Per the Journal, investigators found no “substantial reason to believe that Rep. Omar reported false or incomplete information in her financial disclosures.” Omar’s office told the Journal she didn’t catch the errors, which stemmed from erroneous valuations of her husband’s businesses, because she “isn’t involved in her husband’s businesses and trusted the accountant involved.”

The investigation into Omar appears to be part and parcel of the Trump administration’s weaponization of government—which the president vowed to end—adding to a list of cases that includes former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, former FBI Director James Comey, and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

Omar’s opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts, particularly in her home state of Minnesota, and her Somali heritage have made her a frequent target of the president and his allies. 

Last December, a federal indictment revealed a nearly $9 billion fraud scandal in Minnesota, much of it tied to the state’s Somali immigrants. In March, Vice President J.D. Vance—who leads the Trump administration’s anti-fraud task force—told right-wing commentator Benny Johnson that Omar “definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America.” Vance accused Omar of “being at the center of a lot of the worst fraudsters in the Somali community.” 

Vance doubled down in May, telling White House reporters the immigration fraud allegations were “something that the Department of Justice is looking at right now.” He appeared to pull back from his March claim that he was certain Omar had committed immigration fraud, instead stating that while he didn’t want to “prejudge an investigation,” it “certainly seems like something fishy is there.”

In September, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Johnson that the investigation into Omar was still “ongoing,” and that the department knew she had “married her brother to try to bring him into the United States.” Omar’s office has denied the accusations, which were first levied against her in 2016. 

Mullin claims the investigation into Omar is “not political.” He could be telling the truth; federal investigators have scrutinized Omar before. In 2024, the Biden administration’s Justice Department opened an investigation into Omar’s “finances, campaign spending and interactions with a foreign citizen,” according to The New York Times. Per the Times, the investigation eventually “stalled for lack of evidence.” 

But Mullin’s words are also hard to take at face value. Despite denying accusations of weaponizing the justice system, the Trump administration has time and again used dubious legal reasoning to investigate the president’s political enemies. This includes New York Attorney General Letitia James, who, after successfully suing Trump for financial fraud, was indicted for mortgage fraud by Trump’s Justice Department, which used the same petty justification on her. 

The president has also continued a campaign to indict Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, announcing last week that the White House would hold in-person hearings to look into claims she committed mortgage fraud. Ousting Cook would ostensibly allow the president to install a Fed governor aligned with his priorities. It’s a tactic that failed Trump once before, when his Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for his handling of renovations at the central bank’s headquarters. Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, dropped the probe in April, and the department ultimately found nothing criminal in Powell’s conduct.

An investigation will reveal whether Omar broke the law. Still, if it’s anything like the Trump administration’s previous efforts, the investigation is likely driven by political animus, not criminal behavior.

The post DHS Searched Ilhan Omar's Home as Part of Immigration Fraud Investigation appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/xDSfUe6
via IFTTT

George Anibowei, a U.S. citizen, is a Texas-based immigration attorney with many clients battling the Department of Homeland Security. Border agents have searched his phone at least five times without a warrant as he returned to the United States.

In the first search, agents copied the phone’s entire contents, including his confidential communications with clients. The government still has that data, and Anibowei still doesn’t know why it was kept or who has seen it. He now leaves his work phone at home when he travels.

On September 29, the Supreme Court asked the federal government to respond to Anibowei’s petition, which asks whether the Fourth Amendment lets border agents search the contents of a phone without a warrant. (I’m one of his lawyers.) The government waived its response, expecting the Court would deny the petition without a second look.

But in 2021, the solicitor general told the Court that this very question had produced an “entrenched circuit conflict” of “considerable practical importance.” The conflict has only deepened since. Seven federal appeals courts now hold that a warrant is never required to search a phone at the border, while the 4th and 9th Circuits require one in at least some cases. That means one of your constitutional rights currently depends on which airport you fly into.

While circuit courts may disagree, the Supreme Court has already shown the best answer for this question. In Riley v. California (2014), the Court unanimously held that police generally need a warrant to search the phone of someone they arrest. There is an exception for searches incident to arrest, which allows the police to arrest someone without a warrant; that exists to protect officers and preserve evidence. Data can’t hurt an officer, and a phone can be secured while police get a warrant. An extension of an old exception to digital data, the court said, “has to rest on its own bottom.” Treating a phone like any other container in an arrestee’s pockets was like saying “a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon.”

The border-search exception fails the same test. Those searches exist to collect duties, keep out people who may not enter, and stop contraband. But duties attach to physical goods, not data. And as the legal scholar Orin Kerr has put it, agents “will not find a person smuggled inside a computer hard drive.” As for digital contraband, anyone who wants illicit files can carry a clean phone and download them after clearing customs. Suspicionless phone searches burden millions of innocent travelers while barely inconveniencing smugglers.

The appeals courts that disagree mostly cite one another. But the Supreme Court rejected a lopsided lower-court consensus in Riley, and again in Carpenter v. United States (2018). Counting courts is not a constitutional argument.

Defenders of these searches lean on history. In United States v. Ramsey (1977), the Court noted that the first Congress authorized warrantless customs searches in 1789, less than two months before it proposed the Fourth Amendment. True enough. But that statute let officers search ships for hidden dutiable goods. To search a house, store, or other building for the same goods, officers needed a warrant. And nothing in the statute let officers read a traveler’s papers.

That distinction was no accident. Customs abuses had helped spark the Revolution. Writs of assistance gave British customs officers blanket authority to search wherever they pleased, which James Otis said placed “the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” And the founding generation guarded letters especially closely. Benjamin Franklin, as the first postmaster general, made postal workers swear they would not open mail without an express written warrant.

Even Ramsey, the government’s favorite border search precedent, respected that distinction. It upheld opening international mail to look for contraband, but the regulations before the court flatly prohibited reading correspondence without a warrant, a point the justices stressed repeatedly. The Court has never held that border agents may read a traveler’s papers without a warrant. A phone holds years of correspondence. It deserves at least the same protection the Founders gave a sealed envelope.

Last month, however, the 2nd Circuit joined those courts that have disregarded this tradition. In United States v. Alisigwe, Judge Steven Menashi wrote that agents need no suspicion whatsoever to search a traveler’s property at the border, phones included. A border search becomes non-routine, he reasoned, only when it intrudes on the person, as a strip search does. A phone is property, so searching it is routine.

Judge Eunice Lee concurred, agreeing that no warrant was required. But she warned that the majority’s rule permits suspicionless searches for any reason, “including political or discriminatory ones.”

The Alisigwe majority’s premise miscasts the Fourth Amendment. The amendment’s text secures “persons, houses, papers, and effects” in a single, unranked list. The abuses that produced the amendment were searches of property, including private papers. Agents may properly physically examine a phone to ensure it’s not really a container for smuggling contraband. But reading or viewing its digital contents without a warrant trespasses on a person’s papers and effects. The framers protected property because they recognized that human beings are not ghosts: We live in the physical world by exercising our property rights, and so searching our property can reveal much about our lives.

Alisigwe is the latest word from a Court of Appeals, but it contains complications for the constitutional issue. The trial court found that agents had reasonable suspicion, so the no-suspicion holding arguably wasn’t needed to decide the case. That suspicion involved a forged passport, which goes to identity and admissibility, the core of border authority. Finally, Alisigwe was a permanent resident, not a citizen, so the government’s interest in deciding who may enter was heightened.

Anibowei is simple on each of these counts, which is why one can be hopeful the Supreme Court will take it and address the Fourth Amendment question now. Anibowei is a naturalized citizen, no one suspects him of anything, and he challenges the government’s search policies directly rather than seeking suppression of evidence in a criminal case. As the 5th Circuit itself acknowledged, his case “turns squarely and solely” on the warrant question.

The stakes keep growing. In FY 2025, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) searched 55,318 electronic devices, nearly 11 times as many as in 2012—and nearly a quarter of those searches targeted U.S. citizens. According to the directives Anibowei challenges, agents may keep what they find and share it with federal, state, local, and foreign agencies. Investigators have learned to wait for a target to travel and ask CBP to search his phone on the way back in, rather than go to the trouble of demonstrating probable cause to a judge. No wonder universities, bar associations, and press freedom groups now advise travelers to leave their devices at home.

The Founders rebelled against customs officers who could search wherever they pleased and read whatever they found. A rule letting border agents scroll through a citizen’s correspondence, photos, and client files without a warrant, or any suspicion at all, revives that power. The Supreme Court should take Anibowei’s case. Our papers don’t lose Fourth Amendment protections at the border just because they’re digital.

The post Are Warrantless Phone Searches at the Border Constitutional? The Supreme Court May Soon Decide. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/yRqsz7d
via IFTTT