The “100-­mile border zone” is not just a geographic area—it is a legal construct that provides federal authorities broader powers to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. If you are within 100 miles of the nation’s land borders or coastlines, you are in the 100-­mile border zone, a region where U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) wield expanded powers to enforce immigration and customs laws. 

CBP, particularly Border Patrol, is the primary agency responsible for initial border enforcement, including patrols, checkpoints, and interdictions right at and immediately near the border. Their expanded powers in the 100-­mile zone (e.g., stops at checkpoints without suspicion, reasonable suspicion for roving patrol stops) are directly tied to this frontline enforcement mission. CBP’s operational focus is on preventing illegal entry and apprehending individuals immediately after crossing the border.

ICE’s primary mission is interior enforcement, meaning they focus on identifying, apprehending, and removing undocumented immigrants within the U.S., as well as investigating cross-­border criminal activity. While ICE operates throughout the country, their agents also possess the authorities granted to “immigration officers” under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 within the 100-­mile border zone. ICE’s operational focus is on immigration enforcement after initial entry and investigating cross-­border crimes. Their encounters in the border zone are more likely to arise from specific intelligence or investigations rather than routine border crossing stops. 

The 100-­mile border zone encompasses approximately two-­thirds of the U.S. population, covering major cities like New York, Los Angeles, Houston, as well as entire states such as Florida, Hawaii, and most of New England. Within this zone, federal agents are granted broad powers to stop, search, and detain individuals without a warrant, creating a constitutional gray area that raises important questions about civil liberties, government overreach, and the erosion of accountability.

What Is the 100-­Mile
Border Zone?

Federal regulations define the 100-­mile border zone as the area within 100 air miles of any U.S. “external boundary”—land borders with Canada and Mexico, plus all coastal edges. In this zone, CBP agents operate with broader authority than typical law enforcement, a legacy of the government’s historic mission to secure its frontiers. With millions of Americans living in the zone, this isn’t just a remote outpost issue; it’s a daily reality for urban and rural residents alike. Knowing how your rights within this zone is essential, whether you’re driving through a checkpoint or just living your life near the coast.

The 100-­mile border zone derives its authority from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3), which permits CBP agents to conduct warrantless searches and seizures “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” A regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2), defines this “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from any land or coastal border, including the shores of the Great Lakes, international airports, and U.S. territories. This framework, established without significant public or legislative debate, grants CBP extraordinary powers within a zone that covers approximately 200 million Americans—nearly two-­thirds of the population.

The Congressional Research Service report on the 100-­mile border zone notes that these powers were originally intended to facilitate border security by allowing agents to interdict undocumented immigration and smuggling. However, the zone’s expansive scope, encompassing densely populated urban centers and entire states, has transformed what was meant as a narrow exception into a broad mechanism for federal authority. Unlike at the physical border, where CBP’s powers are nearly absolute, the 100-­mile zone is subject to Fourth Amendment constraints, requiring “reasonable suspicion” for stops and probable cause for arrests. In practice, however, these standards are often loosely applied, leading to widespread allegations of abuse.

A Note on Terminology

The terms “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” are frequently used in discussions about U.S. immigration policy and law enforcement actions, but they carry different legal, political, and social connotations. While both refer to individuals residing in the U.S. without legal authorization, their usage depends on context—whether in formal legal settings, government enforcement, media discourse, or advocacy.

Illegal Alien

Legal Definition: The term “alien” is defined in U.S. immigration law under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3) as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” The term “illegal alien” is used in federal statutes, regulations, and case law to describe individuals who are not lawfully present, such as those who entered without inspection or violated the terms of their admission. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) uses “alien” in the context of registration requirements, and “illegal alien” appears in provisions like 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (improper entry) and § 1326 (illegal reentry).

Usage in Legal Contexts: Federal agencies, including CBP and ICE, frequently use “illegal alien” in official documents, policies, and court filings. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security and the Supreme Court have used the term in cases like Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), to describe individuals without lawful status. The term is precise in legal contexts because it aligns with statutory language and emphasizes the individual’s status under immigration law. 

Connotation: Critics argue that “illegal alien” can be dehumanizing, as it emphasizes legal status over personhood and uses “alien,” which some find pejorative. However, it remains a standard official term in legal and enforcement contexts.

Illegal Immigrant

Legal Definition: The term “immigrant” is precisely defined under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as any alien who is not specifically included within one of the definitions of a “nonimmigrant” alien. In practical terms, this means an immigrant is generally an alien who seeks or has been granted permanent residence in the U.S. In contrast, the term “illegal immigrant” is not a statutory term that appears in the INA or other federal statutes. Instead, it is a commonly used descriptive term in public discourse and some legal contexts to refer to individuals who are present in the U.S. without authorization, such as those who entered the country without inspection or who overstayed the terms of a valid visa. This lack of statutory definition distinguishes it from “illegal alien,” which, while controversial, does appear in various federal laws.

Usage in Legal Contexts: Courts and agencies occasionally use “illegal immigrant” in opinions or reports, but it is less prevalent than “illegal alien” in formal legal documents. For example, in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court referred to “undocumented aliens” and “illegal immigrants” interchangeably when discussing children’s access to education. The term is more common in public discourse, media, and advocacy settings.

Connotation: “Illegal immigrant” is often perceived as less harsh than “illegal alien” because it avoids the term “alien.” However, some argue it still stigmatizes individuals by focusing on their unlawful status. 

Both “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” are accurate in describing individuals without lawful U.S. immigration status, but “illegal alien” is the more legally precise term, given its use in federal statutes like 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) and by agencies like CBP. Nevertheless, “illegal immigrant” is not incorrect and is suitable for broader accessibility.

The Fourth Amendment and
the 100-­Mile Border Zone

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring that law enforcement have a warrant or probable cause—a concrete, fact-­based reason—to search your belongings or detain you. But in the border zone, this protection is reduced due to the “border search exception,” a doctrine born in the nation’s early days and refined through landmark cases like United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977). 

In Ramsey, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the warrantless search of incoming international letters and packages by customs officials is permissible under the Fourth Amendment when they have “reasonable cause to suspect” the presence of contraband. This decision affirmed the “border search exception,” which recognizes the federal government’s longstanding sovereign authority to inspect persons and property entering the country without a warrant or probable cause. The Court ruled that such searches—conducted at the border or its functional equivalent (such as an international mail facility)—are inherently reasonable due to the national interest in preventing illicit goods from crossing U.S. boundaries. 

At the Border Itself

CBP can perform “routine” searches without a warrant or probable cause. For example, you’re crossing back from Canada, and agents start going through your luggage, inspecting your car, or scrolling through your phone. No suspicion is needed. This power traces back to 1789, when Congress gave customs officials discretionary authority to stop smuggling and protect national sovereignty. Over centuries, courts have upheld it as a necessary trade-­off, even as the scope of “routine” searches has ballooned with modern travel and technology.

Historically, the Fourth Amendment’s border search exception allowed warrantless inspections of physical goods, such as barrels of rum or contraband hides, at U.S. points of entry to protect national borders. Today, government agencies assert this authority extends to searching digital devices like phones and laptops, raising significant privacy concerns among advocates due to the vast amount of sensitive personal data these devices contain. The Supreme Court has not yet definitively ruled on the full scope of this digital border search authority—which is primarily exercised at the physical border or its functional equivalents—leaving lower courts divided on what level of suspicion, if any, is required for various types of device searches. 

While the landmark Supreme Court case Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), mandated that law enforcement generally obtain a warrant to search an arrestee’s cellphone in domestic criminal cases, emphasizing unique digital privacy interests, it did not directly address border searches. Nevertheless, Riley’s forceful reasoning is frequently invoked in legal arguments and some judicial opinions to suggest that the traditionally broad border search exception might, or should, face stricter limits when applied to the comprehensive personal data found on modern electronic devices, though this area of law continues to evolve.

Inside the 100-­Mile Border Zone

Checkpoints: CBP sets up immigration checkpoints, often on highways, where they can stop your car briefly to ask about your citizenship—no suspicion required. The Supreme Court sanctioned this practice in United States v. Martinez-­Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), arguing that quick stops serve a public interest in immigration control. Most checkpoint stops last under a minute, but if agents want to search your vehicle or hold you longer, they need probable cause or your consent. For example, in 2022, CBP reported over 17,000 checkpoint seizures—mostly drugs—showing how these stops can escalate beyond immigration checks.

Roving Patrols: Beyond checkpoints, CBP agents patrol the 100-­mile border zone and can stop you if they have “reasonable suspicion”—a lower threshold than probable cause, based on specific, articulable facts (for example, a car weaving near the border at odd hours). This standard for stops by roving patrols was established in United States v. Brignoni-­Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975). This ruling followed Almeida-­Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973), which previously clarified that random, warrantless searches of vehicles by roving patrols, without probable cause or consent, violate the Fourth Amendment. While Almeida-­Sanchez prohibited such random searches, Brignoni-­Ponce specifically defined the “some basis” (reasonable suspicion) required for a lawful stop.

Your Home and Property: Your house is still your castle, even in the border zone. CBP can’t enter without probable cause or a warrant, but there’s a caveat: within 25 miles of the border, federal law permits agents to enter private land (not dwellings) to patrol. 8 U.S.C. § 1357. Thus, for a Texas rancher, the presence of uninvited agents on their land, while legally permissible, can be a source of considerable unease. This power, rooted in border security needs, has sparked lawsuits and local pushback, especially when agents linger or damage crops. 

The Evolution of the Border
Search Exception

The legal framework governing searches at the U.S. border has undergone significant evolution. Historically, its application in the 19th century primarily focused on inspecting goods and merchandise to ensure compliance with customs duties and to prevent the entry of prohibited items at established ports of entry.

As the 20th century progressed and cross-­border travel and immigration surged, the scope of the border search exception expanded, allowing for the search of individuals and their vehicles. This expansion recognized the government’s inherent sovereign right to control who and what enters its territory. 

The landscape shifted considerably after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Heightened national security concerns led to a significant bolstering of border authorities’ powers. In United States v. Flores-­Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that CBP officers do not need individualized suspicion to conduct routinesearches of vehicles at the international border—including dismantling a gas tank to check for contraband. The decision reinforced the government’s broad authority under the border searchexception to the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing the unique need to police smuggling at the nation’s edges.

However, the Court deliberately left open the question of whether non-­routine, highly intrusivesearches might require justification. Subsequent cases have clarified these limits:

Electronic Devices: In United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit held that more intrusive forensic searches of laptops or phones (e.g., extracting deleted files or system logs) require reasonable suspicion, thereby distinguishing them from less intrusive, routine physical inspections. This ruling significantly advanced privacy protections for digital information at the border. However, other circuits, such as the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018), have held that even forensic searches of electronic devices do not require individualized suspicion at the border, creating a circuit split on this issue.

Bodily Intrusions: Highly intrusive personal searches at the border, such as strip searches, body cavity probes, or involuntary X-­rays, are not considered “routine” border searches and therefore require a heightened level of suspicion. The Supreme Court in United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985), established that such searches require at least reasonable suspicion that the individual is concealing contraband. For even more extreme and invasive intrusions such involuntary stomach pumping, courts may require probable cause.

Destructive Property Searches: While the Supreme Court has permitted some disruptive searches without suspicion (the disassembly of a vehicle’s fuel tank in Flores-­Montano), the legal landscape for permanently damaging property during a border search remains a point of contention. Generally, courts indicate that permanently damaging property (for example, shredding upholstery or cutting into structural components beyond normal inspection procedures) could trigger heightened Fourth Amendment scrutiny, potentially requiring reasonable suspicion or even probable cause, as such actions go beyond the scope of a routine border inspection and significantly implicate an individual’s property interests. There is no single, definitive Supreme Court case that explicitly defines the line for “destructive” property searches, but the principle of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment guides lower court decisions.

Technology and Privacy in
the 100-­Mile Border Zone

The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures faces unique challenges concerning electronic devices at and near the U.S. border. The vast amount of personal data stored on smartphones, laptops, and other digital devices has led to a complex and evolving legal landscape.

At the Border (Ports of Entry)

CBP policy distinguishes between two types of electronic device searches:

Basic Searches: These involve a manual, superficial review of a device’s contents by an officer, like scrolling through photos, messages, or contacts, typically without connecting external equipment. Under current CBP policy and the prevailing legal interpretation in many federal circuits, these basic searches do not require any individualized suspicion. This means agents can demand that travelers unlock their devices or provide passwords. If a traveler refuses, the device may be seized, and entry could be denied (especially for non-­U.S. citizens). CBP policy directs officers to avoid accessing data stored solely in the cloud, but data cached on the device remains subject to search.

Advanced Searches: These are more intrusive, involving the use of external equipment to connect to a device to review, copy, or analyze its contents, which can include extracting deleted files or conducting forensic data analysis. Under CBP policy, advanced searches require reasonable suspicion of a violation of law enforced by CBP or a national security concern, and they also necessitate approval from a supervisory officer.

The federal circuit courts are currently divided on the constitutionality of these search standards, particularly for advanced or forensic searches:

Ninth Circuit: In United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit held that forensic searches of electronic devices require reasonable suspicion. 

Fourth Circuit: The Fourth Circuit’s approach in United States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2018), shares similarities with the Ninth Circuit’s view, though it did not definitively adopt the same standard. In Kolsuz, the Fourth Circuit considered whether a forensic search of a cellphone at the border requires individualized suspicion. While the Court did not definitively rule on this issue, it assumed for the sake of argument that such searches might be non-­routine and thus require some level of suspicion. However, because the Court found that reasonable suspicion existed in this case, it did not need to resolve the question definitively. This approach aligns conceptually with the Ninth Circuit’s Cotterman decision, which explicitly requires reasonable suspicion for forensic searches of electronic devices at the border, as both courts recognize the potentially intrusive nature of digital searches. However, the Fourth Circuit stopped short of establishing a firm requirement.

Eleventh Circuit: In contrast, the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018), has held that no suspicion is required for even forensic searches of electronic devices at the border, representing a more expansive view of border search authority.

First Circuit: In Alasaad v. Mayorkas, 993 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2021), the First Circuit largely upheld CBP’s policy of requiring reasonable suspicion for advanced searches but no suspicion for basic searches, while also clarifying that the permissible scope of searches extends to evidence of any violation of laws enforced by CBP or ICE.

This circuit split means that the specific legal standard for electronic device searches can depend on the location of the port of entry. The Supreme Court has yet to issue a definitive ruling on the constitutionality of these searches, leaving this critical area of Fourth Amendment law in a state of flux.

Inside the 100-­Mile Border Zone (Interior)

Away from the immediate border, within the 100-­mile border zone (e.g., at interior checkpoints or during encounters with roving patrols), the Fourth Amendment generally provides stronger protections.

Fixed Immigration Checkpoints: At fixed immigration checkpoints, CBP agents may stop travelers and ask about immigration status without suspicion, as established in United States v. Martinez-­Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976). However, searching electronic devices, which contain vast amounts of personal data, is a more intrusive action. While no court has directly ruled on this issue, the significant privacy interests involved suggest that such searches likely require probable cause—similar to standards for searching vehicle contents at checkpoints. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975). Without specific case law, the threshold for searching electronic devices at these checkpoints remains uncertain, though Fourth Amendment protections are generally stronger in the interior than at the border.

Roving Patrols: During roving patrols within the 100-­mile border zone, CBP agents must have reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle, based on factors indicating potential immigration violations. United States v. Brignoni-­Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975). Searching an electronic device during such a stop would almost certainly require additional justification, such as probable cause or consent, given the Fourth Amendment’s safeguards against unreasonable searches. However, no federal appellate court has definitively ruled on the standard for device searches in this context.

Unlike at ports of entry, where circuit court rulings and CBP policies distinguish between basic and advanced electronic device searches, no such guidance exists for the interior border zone. CBP’s operational policies do not specifically address device searches in this region, contributing to the lack of clarity. This ambiguity has fueled legal challenges, with groups like the American Civil Liberties Union arguing that warrantless device searches here violate the Fourth Amendment. Ongoing litigation highlights the tension between CBP’s enforcement authority and constitutional privacy rights.

Travelers within the 100-­mile border zone should be aware that, while Fourth Amendment protections are more robust in the interior than at the border, CBP may still attempt to search electronic devices without suspicion, especially at checkpoints. The legality of such actions could depend on the circumstances and jurisdiction, given the absence of a uniform standard. Pending court decisions and potential policy updates may eventually clarify these rules. For now, the balance between immigration enforcement and digital privacy in this zone remains unsettled. 

Prevalence of Digital Searches

The increasing frequency of electronic device searches by CBP underscores the interplay between technology and border enforcement. According to CBP’s own statistics, agents conducted 41,767 border searches of electronic devices at ports of entry in 2023 alone. This number illustrates how digital searches profoundly amplify the reach of the border search exception into individuals’ private digital lives, raising critical questions about the delicate balance between national security and individual privacy rights.

How It Differs Outside the
100-­Mile Border Zone

Outside the 100-­mile border zone, Fourth Amendment safeguards operate at their full strength. Unlike in the border zone—where immigration checkpoints and roving patrols operate under relaxed constitutional standards—law enforcement generally need probable cause, a warrant, or consent to conduct stops or searches. Routine immigration inspections and suspicionless checkpoints do not exist in most of the country’s interior, meaning encounters with federal agents are far less frequent and subject to stricter judicial scrutiny. While exceptions apply such as exigent circumstances, the baseline rule remains clear: beyond the border zone, the government’s authority to intrude on privacy without justification diminishes significantly.

Illegal Aliens

When it comes to the application of the Fourth Amendment, there is no fundamental difference in how its core protections apply to illegal aliens within the 100-­mile border zone compared to other individuals. The legal standards governing stops, searches, and seizures—such as the requirement for reasonable suspicion for roving patrol stops or the permissibility of brief inquiries at fixed immigration checkpoints without individualized suspicion—are uniformly applied based on location and circumstances, not on a person’s immigration status.

The principles of the Fourth Amendment (requiring reasonableness, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause for government intrusion) remain constant for everyone, but the context of immigration enforcement introduces specific statutory authorities. For instance, immigration officers have the statutory power to make warrantless arrests of individuals they have reason to believe are unlawfully present and likely to escape. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). This specific authority for a civil immigration violation, while unique to non-­citizens, must still meet the Fourth Amendment’s overall reasonableness standard.

It is critical to note that while the constitutional protections and thresholds for government intrusion under the Fourth Amendment remain the same for everyone within the border zone, the consequences of these enforcement actions may differ significantly for illegal aliens, potentially leading to detention or deportation.

The Fifth Amendment and
the 100-­Mile Border Zone

The Fifth Amendment serves as a vital safeguard against government overreach, providing two fundamental protections: (1) the privilege against compelled self-­incrimination, commonly thought of as the right to remain silent but is actually broader in that the privilege covers the production of testimonial evidence in various forms, not just oral testimony, and applies to legal proceedings other than criminal cases and (2) the guarantee of due process of law, which requires the government to follow fair procedures like notice and an opportunity to be heard before it deprives individuals of their rights (procedural due process) and safeguards certain fundamental rights such as the right to privacy (substantive due process). While these rights remain intact even within the 100-­mile border zone, their application can become more complex in this high-­enforcement area.

The Right to Remain Silent

When interacting with CBP agents, individuals generally possess the right to remain silent, just as they would with other law enforcement officers. This fundamental right protects a person from being forced to provide oral testimony that could be used against them in a criminal proceeding. While the Supreme Court’s ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), established that silence alone cannot justify an arrest or detention, the practical application of this right can vary significantly based on citizenship status and the specific context of the encounter within the 100-­mile border zone.

For Lawful Non-­Citizens
(including Lawful Permanent Residents and Visa Holders)

The situation for non-­citizens is complex due to specific immigration laws. Federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e), mandates that every alien aged 18 and over “shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him.” Failure to comply can result in misdemeanor charges, fines, or imprisonment. Therefore, non-­citizens are generally required to provide documentation verifying their legal immigration status when asked by CBP agents. 

Beyond providing required immigration documentation, non-­citizens generally retain the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent regarding questions unrelated to their immigration status or identity, such as inquiries about personal activities or associations. They may politely and clearly state, “I choose to exercise my right to remain silent” or “I’d rather not answer.” However, exercising this right, particularly at a port of entry where non-­citizens bear the burden of proving admissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), can be practically challenging. Refusal to answer questions beyond providing documentation may raise suspicions of immigration violations (e.g., visa overstays, misrepresentation, or fraud), potentially leading to adverse consequences. These could include denial of entry, lengthy secondary inspection, or, in some cases, expedited removal proceedings. Even within the 100-­mile border zone, at checkpoints, or during roving patrols, non-­cooperation may escalate encounters, prompting further scrutiny or detention. For non-­citizens, especially those seeking entry, a perceived failure to satisfy a CBP officer’s inquiries may result in denial of admission, underscoring the delicate balance between constitutional protections and immigration enforcement.

For Illegal Aliens (Undocumented Entrants and Visa Overstayers)

The Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled self-­incrimination, including the right to remain silent, applies to all persons within the U.S., regardless of immigration status. This principle was clearly established in Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), in which the Supreme Court ruled that even non-­citizens facing deportation are entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections, declaring that “all persons within the territory of the United States” are covered by these constitutional guarantees. 

The right to remain silent was further reinforced by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which requires law enforcement—including immigration officers—to inform detained individuals of their right to silence before custodial interrogation. While non-­citizens must comply with certain documentation requirements under immigration law, they cannot be compelled to answer questions that might incriminate them in criminal matters. However, in practice, asserting this right during immigration enforcement encounters may lead to prolonged detentions or heightened scrutiny, particularly in border zones where expedited removal procedures apply.

While the Fifth Amendment technically protects illegal aliens from being compelled to provide incriminating statements, its practical application is limited by their immigration status:

Lack of Documentation: Unlike lawful non-­citizens, who can satisfy CBP by presenting documents and limit silence to non-­immigration questions, illegal aliens cannot meet the documentation requirement, making silence less effective.

Adverse Consequences: Refusing to answer questions can lead to denial of entry, secondary inspection, or expedited removal at ports of entry and detention or removal within the border zone. For illegal aliens, these consequences are nearly inevitable due to their inadmissibility or unlawful presence.

Custodial vs. Non-­Custodial Settings: The right to remain silent is strongest in custodial settings where Miranda warnings apply. At ports of entry or during brief checkpoint stops, interactions are often non-­custodial, meaning CBP is not required to provide Miranda warnings, and silence may be interpreted as non-­cooperation.

Legal Challenges: Organizations like the ACLU have argued that CBP’s questioning practices, particularly in the 100-­mile border zone, infringe on constitutional rights. However, for illegal aliens, these challenges offer little immediate relief, as their unlawful status triggers enforcement regardless of Fifth Amendment protections.

Practical Advice

Legal advocacy groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, recommend a nuanced approach when interacting with CBP. Individuals are generally advised to:

State their citizenship or present required documentation promptly.

Politely assert their right to remain silent regarding any other questions by saying, “I’m exercising my right to remain silent” or “I do not wish to answer any questions.”

Avoid providing false information or lying.

Do not consent to searches of themselves, their belongings, or their electronic devices without a warrant or probable cause, clearly stating, “I do not consent to a search.” However, understand that at the border itself, searches of belongings and electronic devices generally do not require consent or suspicion.

Remain calm and do not resist physically, even if they believe their rights are being violated. Resistance can lead to arrest and further complications.

Ask if they are free to leave if they feel they are being detained unlawfully beyond the scope of a brief inquiry.

Seek legal counsel if detained or questioned extensively.

This balanced approach aims to assert constitutional rights without unnecessarily escalating the situation, recognizing the unique powers granted to CBP within the border zone.

Due Process Rights

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This protection, known as due process, is a cornerstone of American law and applies to all individuals within the United States, regardless of citizenship. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), in which it ruled that “aliens” within U.S. territory are entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections, particularly in criminal proceedings. In Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976), the Supreme Court explicitly stated, “There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.” More recently, the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), reaffirmed that “the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”

However, within the 100-­mile border zone, the practical application of due process rights diverges sharply depending on citizenship status. The application of these rights in the border zone can feel precarious, especially for non-­citizens. The heavy presence of CBP in the zone, combined with unique legal provisions like expedited removal, creates an environment where due process rights are often stress-­tested. 

Overview of Due Process

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause ensures that the government cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This protection includes two key components: (1) procedural due process and (2) substantive due process, both of which are essential in safeguarding individual rights, particularly in areas like immigration and border enforcement.

Procedural due process focuses on the fairness of the procedures the government must follow before taking away an individual’s rights. It typically requires:

Notice: Being informed of the government’s actions or charges against you.

Opportunity to be heard: Having a chance to present your case, often through a hearing or legal proceeding.

In the context of immigration and border enforcement, procedural due process generally means that individuals facing detention or deportation are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, where they can challenge the government’s actions. However, certain laws and policies—especially near the border—can limit or bypass these protections for non-­citizens. For example, expedited removal processes allow for swift deportation without a full hearing, reducing the procedural safeguards available.

Substantive due process goes beyond fair procedures and protects certain fundamental rights and liberties from government interference, regardless of how fair the process might be. It ensures that laws and actions are not arbitrary or unjust. In immigration and border enforcement, substantive due process has been interpreted to protect non-­citizens from excessive or unreasonable government actions, such as arbitrary or indefinite detention. 

For instance, in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that detaining non-­citizens indefinitely without a clear prospect of removal violates substantive due process. The Court held that indefinite detention of non-­citizens who had been ordered removed, but for whom removal was not reasonably foreseeable, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court reasoned that such detention, without a clear purpose or endpoint, unjustly restricts liberty and thus implicates substantive due process protections

While procedural due process guarantees a fair process, substantive due process sets limits on the government’s power to act, even in immigration matters. However, the application of substantive due process in this context can be limited because courts often defer to the government’s broad authority over immigration. Together, these two components of due process provide a framework for protecting individual rights, though challenges remain, especially in the border zone where enforcement is intensified.

Due Process Rights for U.S. Citizens
in the 100-­Mile Border Zone

For U.S. citizens, the due process rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment are robust and unyielding, even within the 100-­mile border zone where CBP has heightened authority.

The border zone is an area where CBP can conduct searches and seizures with fewer restrictions than in other parts of the country. Despite CBP’s heightened authority in the border zone, U.S. citizens retain full Fifth Amendment due process protections. This means that citizens cannot be deported, subjected to expedited removal, or denied the right to challenge unlawful detention.

U.S. citizens in the border zone are entitled to several critical legal safeguards:

No Deportation: U.S. citizens cannot be removed from the country under any circumstances. Citizenship is a fundamental right that cannot be revoked except in very specific cases, such as voluntary renunciation. This protection ensures that citizens are not at risk of being wrongfully deported, even if they are stopped or questioned by CBP in the border zone.

Right to a Hearing: If a U.S. citizen is detained by CBP, they have the right to challenge their detention in court. This can be done by filing a writ of habeas corpus, which requires the government to justify the detention before a judge. This legal safeguard ensures that citizens are not held indefinitely without cause and provides a mechanism to contest unlawful detention.

Protection from Expedited Removal: Expedited removal is a process that allows for the swift deportation of certain non-­citizens without a hearing. However, this process does not apply to U.S. citizens. Citizens are entitled to full due process, including the right to a hearing and legal representation, before any action that could affect their liberty.

These protections are enforced through the U.S. legal system, which provides avenues for citizens to seek redress if their rights are violated. For instance, if a citizen is wrongfully detained, they can file a lawsuit against the government for damages or seek other forms of legal relief.

Despite these robust legal protections, mistakes can and do happen. In 2019, Francisco Erwin Galicia, a U.S. citizen born in Texas, was wrongfully detained by CBP for nearly a month because agents reportedly did not believe the authenticity of his birth certificate and pressured him to sign deportation papers. He considered signing them due to the deplorable conditions of his detention, despite being a U.S. citizen, which would have amounted to a de facto renunciation of his right to remain in the U.S. His ordeal underscores that while the law protects citizens, systemic pressures, human error, or overzealous enforcement can cause grave harm before the legal system corrects the error.

CBP officers have the authority to stop and question individuals within the border zone without suspicion. This can lead to situations where citizens are stopped and questioned, particularly if they are mistaken for non-­citizens. These stops are generally brief but can be inconvenient and stressful. It is essential for citizens to understand that while CBP has broad authority in the border zone, their due process rights remain intact.

Citizens in the border zone should consider the following tips:

Carry Identification: Always have a government-­issued ID, such as a driver’s license or passport, to prove your citizenship. If possible, carry a copy of your birth certificate or other proof of citizenship as well. This can help prevent misunderstandings and expedite the process if you are stopped.

Know Your Rights: If you are detained, calmly assert your citizenship status and clearly request to speak with an attorney. It is important to remain calm and polite, as escalating the situation can lead to further complications. Remember that you have the right to remain silent (beyond confirming your citizenship) and the right to legal representation. But you must be clear and unambiguous when invoking your right to a lawyer. Do not hedge by saying, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” Instead, clearly say something like, “I want to speak with a lawyer and will not answer any questions without one present.” Finally, do not sign anything without the advice of legal counsel. 

Document Interactions: If you are stopped, note the time, location, and details of the encounter. You can also ask for the officer’s name and badge number. This information can be crucial if you need to challenge unlawful detention or file a complaint later.

U.S. citizens in the 100-­mile border zone retain their full Fifth Amendment due process rights, including protection from deportation, the right to a hearing, and immunity from expedited removal. However, the heightened presence of CBP in this area means the reality is citizens may face stops, questioning, or even detention, particularly if mistaken for non-­citizens. By understanding your rights, carrying proper identification, and documenting any interactions with CBP, you can help ensure that your due process rights are respected. If your rights are violated, the U.S. legal system provides mechanisms to challenge unlawful actions and seek redress.

Due Process Rights for Non-­Citizens in the 100-­Mile Border Zone

The due process rights of the Fifth Amendment apply to everyone within U.S. borders, including non-­citizens. However, within the 100-­mile border, the application of these rights becomes far more complex and restrictive for non-­citizens. Within this zone, CBP officers can stop, question, and detain individuals suspected of immigration violations with fewer procedural protections than elsewhere in the country.

For non-­citizens, especially those who are undocumented or recently arrived, navigating this zone requires understanding their rights amidst complex legal and practical challenges. The Fifth Amendment still guarantees due process, but immigration laws like expedited removal often override these safeguards, creating a tension between constitutional rights and enforcement priorities.

Expedited Removal: Fast-­Tracked Deportation

Expedited removal, enacted under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), allows low-­level CBP officers, not judges, to order the deportation of certain non-­citizens without a hearing before an immigration judge. This process applies to individuals who:

Are apprehended within 100 miles of the border.

Cannot prove they have been continuously present in the U.S. for a certain period, which is typically (1) less than 14 days if apprehended within 100 miles of a land border (various Administrations have exercised their discretion to apply expedited removal more narrowly or broadly, often based on different geographic and temporal limits) and (2) less than two years if apprehended anywhere in the U.S. (under policies that expand expedited removal to its full statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)). As of early 2025, there has been a shift to restore the application of expedited removal to the fullest extent authorized by Congress, i.e., the two-­year rule, nationwide.

Lack valid entry documents or have misrepresented their status.

The process hinges on a CBP officer’s determination, with no formal judicial review unless an asylum claim is raised. Non-­citizens asserting a fear of persecution must pass a “credible fear” interview with an asylum officer, but even this step offers limited protections because the Supreme Court ruled in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (2020), that non-­citizens subject to expedited removal orders generally cannot challenge the legality or factual basis of their removal order in federal court via habeas corpus. Furthermore, although non-­citizens have the right to hire an attorney, the government does not provide one at its expense during the initial expedited removal process, and engaging a private attorney within the extremely short timeframe is often impossible. 

Expedited removal is swift—often completed within hours or days—leaving little time to seek help or gather evidence. In the border zone, where CBP operates with heightened authority, non-­citizens may be detained at remote checkpoints or facilities that are far from legal or familial support. The lack of a hearing means decisions rest solely on CBP discretion, raising risks of error or abuse. For those with potential asylum claims, the process prioritizes speed over scrutiny. 

Critics argue that expedited removal sacrifices due process for efficiency. A 2019 American Immigration Council report found that 80% of individuals in expedited removal were not asked about their fear of return, despite regulations requiring such inquiries. 8 C.F.R. § 235.3. This gap can lead to refoulement—forcible deportation to persecution—violating international norms like the 1951 Refugee Convention. Thuraissigiam further limits judicial oversight, leaving non-­citizens vulnerable to administrative overreach.

Here is some practical advice:

Know Your Status: Carry proof of U.S. presence (e.g., rent receipts, utility bills, employment records, etc.) if you have been here more than 14 days or two years, depending on currently applicable CBP policy. If you can prove that you satisfy the applicable threshold for continuous presence in the U.S., expedited removal should not apply, and you have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II). State this clearly to CBP officers and immediately present your evidence. 

Assert Asylum Early: If you fear persecution or torture in your home country, you must express this fear clearly and immediately to any immigration official you encounter. State that “I fear for my life if deported” to trigger a credible fear interview.

Memorize a Contact: Have a lawyer or family member’s phone number memorized—detainees often lose access to cellphones or documents.

Do Not Sign Without Understanding: Do not sign any document, especially a “Stipulated Removal Order,” unless you fully understand it and have had the benefit of legal advice. Signing often waives your rights. You can refuse to sign.

Request Legal Counsel: CBP is not obligated to provide a lawyer, but asserting this right creates a record. Try to contact any known legal service provider or family member who can seek legal help immediately.

Document Interactions: Note officers’ names, badge numbers, and statements if possible, for later legal challenges.

Right to Counsel: A Right
of Limited Practical Value

The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362, grants non-­citizens the right to counsel in removal proceedings based on the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requiring a fair hearing. It is important to note, however, that this right to counsel is not equivalent to the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel in criminal cases. Notably, the government does not fund counsel, and in expedited removal, no formal hearing occurs, effectively nullifying access. Even in standard proceedings, the Supreme Court in Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011), clarified that due process does not mandate appointed counsel in civil matters like immigration, leaving non-­citizens to fend for themselves. 

In the border zone, detentions often occur in remote CBP facilities—that is, desert outposts in Arizona or rural Texas—far from legal resources. Non-­citizens, many of whom speak little English, may not know they can hire a lawyer or how to find one. Time constraints exacerbate this: expedited removal can conclude before counsel is obtained. Studies show representation matters—a 2019 American Immigration Council study revealed detained immigrants with lawyers were five times more likely to win their cases, yet only 14% had legal representation. Without legal counsel, individuals often fail to assert valid defenses such as asylum claims or lawful status. Troublingly, the American Immigration Council and Human Rights Watch report that some CBP officers discourage detainees from seeking legal representation.

Here is some practical advice:

Pre-­Plan: Memorize contact info for immigration lawyers or groups like the National Immigration Law Center and National Immigration Law Center.

Request Access: If detained, firmly say, “I want to speak to my lawyer,” and provide their contact details. CBP must allow this call, though they may delay.

Seek Pro Bono: Contact organizations like the ACLU, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and local nonprofits for free or low-­cost legal help if you cannot afford a lawyer.

Educate Yourself: Learn basic rights (e.g., “I have the right to counsel”) in English or your native language before entering the border zone.

Detention Conditions in the
100-­Mile Border Zone

The treatment of non-­citizens detained in the 100-­mile border zone raises profound questions about human dignity and constitutional rights. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process to all “persons” within the U.S., regardless of citizenship status, yet the reality of immigration detention often falls well short of this promise. 

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. For non-­citizens detained by immigration authorities, this means detention conditions must meet basic standards of human dignity: adequate food, water, shelter, medical care, and safety. Unlike criminal incarceration, immigration detention is a civil process, meaning it cannot legally amount to punishment.

The Supreme Court case Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982), is a foundational case regarding substantive due process right in civil detention contexts. Although it addressed the rights of individuals involuntarily committed to mental health facilities, its principles apply broadly to civil detention, including immigration contexts. The Court ruled that detainees are entitled to “adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care” and “reasonable safety.” For non-­citizens in CBP custody, this establishes a constitutional floor below which conditions must not fall.

These legal protections are robust on paper, but their enforcement is spotty in practice. The expedited removal process prioritizes speed over scrutiny, often subordinating detainee welfare. Compounding this, the Supreme Court’s decision in Thuraissigiam limits judicial review for those subject to expedited removal, reducing avenues to challenge unconstitutional detention conditions.

CBP operates short-­term holding facilities in the border zone, often called “hieleras” (Spanish for “iceboxes”) due to their frigid temperatures. Designed for stays of 72 hours or less, these cells frequently become prolonged detention sites during apprehension surges. Detainees report:

Overcrowding: Cells packed beyond capacity, with some forced into “standing-­room-­only” conditions for days.

Minimal Comfort: Concrete floors as beds, thin mylar blankets for warmth, and no pillows or mattresses.

Hygiene Deficiencies: Showers may be weeks apart, and basic toiletries like soap or toothbrushes are scarce.

Inadequate Food: Meals are sporadic and minimal—often frozen burritos or similar low-­nutrition items.

A 2019 Government Accountability Office report confirmed these issues, noting that overcrowding and resource shortages strain CBP’s ability to meet basic constitutional standards.

Here is some practical advice:

Document Conditions Thoroughly: Note dates, times, and specifics (e.g., “No water for 12 hours, xx/xx/20xx” or “Denied doctor for fever, xx/xx/20xx, Officer X”). Use any available means—memory, scraps of paper, or verbal recitation to others. Ask fellow detainees to corroborate your account, strengthening future claims.

Demand Care Assertively: Request necessities clearly and be specific: “I need water; I haven’t had any in 10 hours.” Invoke legal rights: “The Fifth Amendment guarantees me humane treatment—please provide a blanket.” Repeat requests if necessary; persistence creates a record, even if initially ignored. 

Report Abuses Quickly: Notify allies—tell family, friends, or lawyers about conditions via any communication allowed. They can file complaints with the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and advocacy groups like the ACLU. Provide as much detail as possible, e.g., dates, locations, explanation of complaints, and officers’ names if known.

Final Thoughts: Due Process
for Non-­citizens

The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process remains a fundamental constitutional right throughout the U.S., including the 100-­mile border zone. However, the practical experience of this guarantee is starkly unequal. U.S. citizens possess strong legal protection against deportation and have clearer pathways to enforce their rights, though they must still remain vigilant against bureaucratic errors. 

For non-­citizens, especially those unable to prove long-­term presence, the border zone is where due process is most fragile. The expedited removal statute and Thuraissigiam create a system designed for speed and finality, often at the expense of thorough scrutiny and meaningful access to the courts. Understanding these dramatically different realities is essential for anyone living in or traveling through the border zone. Knowledge of your specific rights and the determination to assert them clearly are critical tools for successfully navigating this complex and consequential legal terrain. 

Arrest Warrant Requirements
for Non-­Citizens in the
100-­Mile Border Zone

Understanding when law enforcement must obtain a warrant to arrest non-­citizens within the U.S., particularly near its borders, involves navigating a complex interplay between constitutional rights and specialized immigration enforcement powers. This complexity centers on the 100-­mile border zone. Importantly, the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures protects all individuals physically present in the U.S., including non-­citizens, forming the basis for determining warrant requirements.

The Foundation: The Fourth Amendment’s Reach

The Fourth Amendment guarantees security against unreasonable government intrusion for “persons,” a term definitively encompassing non-­citizens within U.S. territory, regardless of immigration status. For arrests, this generally means a warrant, supported by probable cause and issued by a neutral judge, is required. However, established exceptions permit warrantless arrests in specific situations, including:

When a crime is committed in a law enforcement officer’s presence.

When an officer has probable cause to believe a felony has been committed.

Under exigent circumstances, such as an imminent risk of flight or evidence destruction.

These core constitutional principles apply equally to citizens and non-­citizens. Yet, in the realm of immigration enforcement, especially within the border zone, specific federal statutes interact with the Fourth Amendment, creating distinct rules primarily governing arrests for immigration violations rather than standard crimes.

Arrests for Immigration Violations: Civil Offenses, Different Rules

Immigration violations—like unauthorized entry or overstaying a visa—are classified as civil offenses under U.S. law. The warrant requirement for arresting non-­citizens for these violations depends heavily on their specific immigration status (lawfully present or unlawfully present) and on location relative to the border zone.

Lawfully Present Non-­Citizens: Individuals such as visa holders or lawful permanent residents (green card holders) generally cannot be arrested for an immigration violation without an administrative warrant. These warrants, issued under the authority of the Immigration and Nationality Act by immigration officials rather than judges, must still satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s overarching reasonableness standard. This requirement holds true both within and outside the 100-­mile border zone. Although CBP officers possess broader powers to stop and question individuals at checkpoints within the border zone without any suspicion (under the “border search exception”), moving from a stop to a full arrest typically requires an administrative warrant, barring exigent circumstances like a clear risk of escape. 

Unlawfully Present Non-­Citizens: For individuals who entered without authorization or whose legal status has expired, the rules differ significantly due to specific statutory authority. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), immigration officers can arrest such individuals without a warrant if they have “reason to believe” the person is unlawfully present and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Courts, notably in United States v. Brignoni-­Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), have found this statutory framework reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Within the border zone, this authority is amplified by the focus on preventing illegal entry and the application of the border search exception, making warrantless stops, questioning, and subsequent arrests more frequent, provided they remain reasonable. Outside the border zone, while the same statutory authority for warrantless arrest exists, stops and questioning generally require “reasonable suspicion,” making warrantless enforcement actions less common than near the border.

Arrests for Criminal Offenses: Uniform Constitutional Protections

When non-­citizens are suspected of standard criminal offenses—whether they are lawfully present, unlawfully present, inside the border zone, or outside it—the rules governing their arrest are identical to those protecting U.S. citizens. The Fourth Amendment applies uniformly in these situations.

Law enforcement generally needs a judicial warrant (issued by a judge) to arrest someone for a crime unless a recognized exception applies, such as witnessing the crime or having probable cause for a felony arrest. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). The enhanced immigration enforcement powers granted within the border zone do not extend to criminal law enforcement. Police or immigration officers making a criminal arrest within the border zone must adhere to the same Fourth Amendment standards requiring a judicial warrant or valid exception as they would anywhere else in the country. The border zone’s unique status affects only immigration enforcement actions, not the fundamental constitutional protections afforded during arrests for criminal acts.

The 100-­Mile Border Zone: Enhanced Powers, Defined Limits

Immigration authorities are granted specific, heightened powers in the border zone that are designed to control the border, but these powers are tightly focused on immigration enforcement.

Checkpoints: Officers can stop vehicles at fixed checkpoints within the zone to briefly question occupants about their immigration status without any warrant or individualized suspicion. United States v. Martinez-­Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976).

Searches: Warrantless searches of vehicles or belongings near the border may be permitted based on reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation. Almeida-­Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973).

However, these enhanced powers are confined to immigration-­related activities. When CBP officers seek to make an arrest for a criminal offense, even within the border zone, they must comply with standard Fourth Amendment requirements, viz., obtaining a judicial warrant or meeting the criteria for a warrantless arrest exception. The flexibility within the border zone pertains solely to immigration enforcement actions.

Key Distinctions Summarized

The critical differences between arrest rules for immigration violations versus criminal offenses, and the impact of location, can be summarized as follows:

Immigration Violations
(Civil Offenses):

Warrant requirements vary based on status (lawful/unlawful presence in the U.S.) and location (border zone/elsewhere).

Administrative warrants are common for lawful non-­citizens; warrantless arrests are explicitly permitted by statute for unlawful non-­citizens, especially near the border.

Enforcement flexibility is significantly enhanced within the 100-­mile border zone.

Criminal Offenses:

Governed strictly by Fourth Amendment standards.

Judicial warrants or recognized exceptions (probable cause, crime in presence of law enforcement officer) are required.

Protections apply uniformly nationwide, regardless of immigration status or proximity to the border.

Conclusion: Balancing
Enforcement and Rights

Determining whether a warrant is needed to arrest a non-­citizen depends on two primary factors: (1) the nature of the alleged violation (immigration vs. criminal) and (2) the location of the arrest (within or outside the 100-­mile border zone).

Immigration violations: Lawfully present individuals typically require an administrative warrant regardless of location. Unlawfully present individuals face a higher likelihood of warrantless arrest, particularly within the border zone, under statutory authority deemed consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Criminal offenses: The Fourth Amendment requires consistent protection for all individuals. Arrests require a judicial warrant or valid exception, with absolutely no variation based on immigration status or location within the border zone.

This framework reflects a deliberate balance. The border zone grants immigration authorities necessary tools to secure the nation’s boundaries while acknowledging the unique challenges of border areas. Simultaneously, the Fourth Amendment ensures that all persons within the U.S., citizen and non-­citizen alike, are protected against arbitrary arrest, upholding fundamental constitutional principles even within heightened enforcement areas.

Conclusion

The 100-­mile border zone represents a unique and often contentious area where constitutional rights intersect with heightened federal enforcement powers. While the Fourth and Fifth Amendments continue to protect individuals within this zone, their application is significantly nuanced—especially for non-­citizens, who face expedited removal, limited due process, and warrantless arrests under certain conditions. U.S. citizens retain robust protections, but even they may encounter invasive searches or wrongful detentions due to the expansive authority granted to CBP and ICE.

The legal landscape of the border zone reflects a delicate balance between national security and civil liberties. Technological advancements, such as digital device searches, further complicate this balance, raising important privacy concerns that courts have yet to fully resolve. For those living or traveling within the border zone, understanding these rights—and their limitations—is essential to successfully navigating encounters with federal authorities.

Ultimately, the 100-­mile border zone underscores a broader tension in American law: how to reconcile expansive government enforcement powers with the constitutional safeguards meant to protect individual freedoms. As policies and court rulings evolve, public awareness and legal advocacy remain vital in ensuring that rights are not further eroded in the name of border security.  

 

Sources: American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Council, Government Accountability Office, Human Rights Watch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

 

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login