Abidor v. Napolitano, 990 F. Supp. 2d 260

Regulations by DHS (ICE/CBP) in Aug. 2009 authorize border searches of electronic devices without individualized suspicion.
Plaintiffs challenge these directives facially and as-applied, alleging violations of First and Fourth Amendments.
Named plaintiff Pascal Abidor and associations NACDL and NPPA allege standing and chilling-effects from searches.
Abidor’s laptop was searched at Champlain border; materials were retained and allegedly copied and shared.
Court addresses standing and merits; cites Cotterman and related border-search precedents, and distinguishes quick-look vs. forensic searches.
Court grants the motion to dismiss; declaratory relief not appropriate; border-search doctrine deemed applicable but not extending to unpersuaded standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge border searches	Abidor and associations suffer ongoing risk	No imminent injury to plaintiffs; standing lacking	Dismissed for lack of standing
Merits of facial/applied challenges to directives	Directives authorize unreasonable searches and chilling effect	Border searches historically reasonable; no First Amendment exception	Merits rejected; no relief granted on merits as standing lacking

United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004) (border searches are reasonable at entry without probable cause or suspicion)
United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes quick-look vs. forensic border searches; reasonable suspicion generally required for forensic searches)
United States v. Arnold, 533 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2008) (describes quick-look border search of electronic devices)
United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005) (border searches of expressive materials; First Amendment considerations cited)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing requires likelihood of real, immediate injury; not speculative)