From the article: “Korman found that the plaintiffs hadn’t shown they suffered injury that gave them standing to bring the suit. He also cited previous rulings finding that the Fourth Amendment constitutional right against unreasonable searches doesn’t apply to the government’s efforts to secure international borders from outside threats.”
Again, the ‘standing’ issue. That has become the modern day legal brick wall. What about the inherent injury that comes from having your private property searched, without probable cause? That’s not sufficient injury? This judge so rules...
Also from the article: [the plaintiff]””cannot be so naive to expect that when he crosses into Syrian or Lebanese border that the contents of his computer will be immune from searches and seizures at the whim of those who work for Bashar al-Assad or Hassan Nasrallah,” the judge said, referring to the president of Syria and leader of Hezbollah.”
So, we now rely on perceptions of actions taken (or presumed to be taken) by foreign countries and terrorist organizations as the foundation for US legal decisions?
This judge needs to be removed from the bench.
“Korman found that the plaintiffs hadn’t shown they suffered injury that gave them standing to bring the suit.
Given the fact that it is without a doubt possible for the government or other malcontents to load stuff surreptitiously onto ones electronic devices and
Given the fact that fear of this occurring to one who may have an opinion different than that of the powers that be, or be in a position of wealth or power enhancing their value as a target, has a "chilling effect" on travel and/or route The plaintiff obviously has suffered injury and has standing.