How 200 Million Americans Live Where the Bill of Rights Is Weaker
When most Americans think about “the border,” they picture fences, ports of entry, and dusty roads lined with Border Patrol trucks. Few realize that, legally speaking, the border stretches far inland, enveloping entire cities, highways, and coastlines under the federal government’s expanded authority.
Under federal regulations, any area within 100 air miles of a U.S. land or coastal border is considered a “reasonable distance” from the border. Within that space, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — through Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), enjoys extraordinary powers that bypass many of the constitutional protections citizens assume apply everywhere.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that two-thirds of the U.S. population, roughly 200 million people, live inside this zone. That includes residents of New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego, Miami, Seattle, Boston, and nearly all of Florida and California. There are entire states that are exempted from constitutional protections such as the state of Hawaii, t Maine, and Florida.
And within it, Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures are weaker, Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination are limited, and even digital privacy can be disregarded without a warrant.
The Legal Foundation: A “Reasonable Distance” from the Border
The authority for this sweeping power comes from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3), which permits immigration officers to:
“...board and search for aliens on any vessel, railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle... within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.”
In 1953, the Department of Justice defined that “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles in 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2).
Originally, this rule was intended for vehicle stops near border crossings. But over decades of case law, the “border search exception” has expanded dramatically — now encompassing airports, seaports, and entire coastal states. An interactive map of this area can be found HERE.
The Constitutional Framework: What the Fourth Amendment Says and Doesn’t Say
The Fourth Amendment guarantees protection from “unreasonable searches and seizures” and requires probable cause and judicial warrants for most government intrusions.
However, courts have long recognized exceptions where the government’s interest is deemed higher than the individual’s privacy rights. At the border, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the government’s sovereign interest in protecting itself from illegal entry and contraband makes routine searches “reasonable” by default.
Key Cases That Built the Border Exception
United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977) — The Court upheld mail inspections at the border, declaring that “border searches are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border.”
United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985) — Upheld the detention of a traveler suspected of smuggling drugs internally, emphasizing the government’s “plenary authority” at the border.
United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004) — Allowed border agents to dismantle a car’s gas tank without suspicion, calling it a “routine” search.
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) — Authorized immigration checkpoints on highways far from the physical border.
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) — Limited roving patrols, holding that warrantless vehicle searches not at checkpoints or the immediate border require probable cause.
Together, these rulings created the legal scaffolding for warrantless searches, stops, and detentions across a massive swath of U.S. territory.
The 100-Mile Zone in Practice: Who Has Authority
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
CBP operates at ports of entry, but also maintains permanent interior checkpoints and conducts roving patrols within the 100-mile zone.
Can stop and question any vehicle without probable cause.
Can conduct “brief questioning” about citizenship status or immigration documentation.
Can search vehicles without a warrant if they have “reasonable suspicion” that it contains contraband or undocumented migrants.
May detain individuals for short periods for verification.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
ICE operates inland but often uses the 100-mile definition to justify warrantless enforcement actions:
Conducts raids, bus and train sweeps, and detentions in the zone.
Uses administrative warrants (signed by ICE supervisors, not judges).
Holds individuals in civil detention, where criminal protections like the right to a speedy trial or court-appointed counsel do not apply.
Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Miami: Inside the Zone
Because the 100-mile zone includes all coastlines, many major inland cities are swept into it by proximity to the ocean.
Major U.S. cities within the 100-mile zone include:
California: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Oakland.
Texas: Houston, Austin, El Paso, Corpus Christi, Brownsville.
Florida: The entire state, including Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville.
Northeast Corridor: New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington D.C.
Great Lakes Region: Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Milwaukee.
Pacific Northwest: Seattle, Portland.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans live within this zone.
That means most people in the U.S. live where federal agents have greater latitude to stop, question, detain, and search without the same judicial oversight that protects people further inland.
How Border Powers Extend to Digital Devices
The courts have recognized a major distinction between physical and digital searches.
In Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), the Supreme Court unanimously held that police must obtain a warrant to search a cell phone seized during an arrest because phones contain “the privacies of life.”
But Riley was a domestic case, not a border one. At the border — including airports and within the 100-mile zone, agents operate under different rules.
CBP’s Digital Search Policy: Directive 3340-049A (2018)
This DHS directive allows two types of device searches:
Basic Search: Manual inspection of a phone or laptop. Requires no suspicion.
Advanced Search: Forensic data extraction using special software. Requires only “reasonable suspicion” or a “national security concern.”
In Alasaad v. Mayorkas, 988 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2021), the First Circuit ruled that border agents do not need a warrant to conduct basic searches, though advanced forensic searches require reasonable suspicion.
That means CBP and ICE can legally browse your photos, messages, contacts, and call logs without a warrant as long as you’re within 100 miles of a border or coast.
Biometrics vs. Passcodes: The Fifth Amendment Divide
The Fifth Amendment protects against being “compelled to be a witness against oneself.”
Courts distinguish between knowledge-based acts (testifying, speaking, entering a passcode) and physical acts (providing fingerprints or facial scans).
The Current Legal Divide
Passcodes and PINs: Protected - entering them is considered testimonial.
Fingerprints or Face Unlock: Not protected - courts consider these physical identifiers, like giving a fingerprint or DNA sample.
In United States v. Wright, No. 17-cr-232 (D.D.C. 2019), the court held that compelling a fingerprint to unlock a phone was not a Fifth Amendment violation.
But in United States v. Brown, 71 F.4th 196 (D.C. Cir. 2025), the court ruled the opposite - that requiring a defendant to identify which finger unlocked the device was testimonial and protected.
The law is deeply inconsistent, but the trend still favors law enforcement over privacy at the border.
What About ICE Inside the Country?
Even beyond airports and ports, ICE regularly relies on the border-search rationale to conduct operations deep within the zone:
Roving Patrols: Authorized by United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), which allowed brief stops if agents have “reasonable suspicion” that occupants may be undocumented — but forbade using race or ethnicity alone.
Fixed Checkpoints: Martinez-Fuerte (1976) upheld their constitutionality, even without individualized suspicion.
Transportation Sweeps: ICE and CBP agents board Greyhound buses and Amtrak trains to question passengers, a practice upheld as voluntary encounters but criticized as coercive.
In 2020, Greyhound publicly ended its cooperation with warrantless searches after public outcry, though federal agents still conduct them on other carriers.
The “Functional Equivalent” of the Border
Courts have expanded the “border” concept to include airports, coastal ports, and any location where international travel occurs.
For example:
United States v. Cardenas, 9 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 1993) — The “functional equivalent of the border” includes international airports where passengers arrive from abroad.
United States v. Guzman-Padilla, 573 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2009) — Upheld searches at ports of entry and inbound flights under the same rationale.
Thus, passengers arriving from overseas can be subject to full border searches, including digital device inspections, even if the airport is hundreds of miles inland.
Immigration Detention and Administrative Warrants
ICE operates under civil authority, not criminal law. That distinction drastically changes constitutional protections.
No Right to Counsel: Immigration hearings are civil proceedings; the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney does not apply.
No Right to a Speedy Trial: Detention can be indefinite while awaiting immigration court.
Administrative Warrants: Signed by ICE supervisors, not judges, allowing officers to enter public areas and question individuals.
This framework was upheld in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), where the Court ruled that evidence obtained through unlawful immigration arrests could still be used in deportation proceedings - effectively lowering the exclusionary standard.
The Broader Civil Liberties Problem
The border search exception, once intended for customs inspections, now fuels a system of routine warrantless searches, detentions, and digital intrusions across the majority of the country.
Civil liberties advocates warn that it has created a two-tiered system of constitutional protection — one for those near the border, and another for those far from it.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls the 100-mile zone “a Constitution-free zone,” noting that it includes entire states like Florida, Maine, and Hawaii and nearly all of the U.S. population living along the coasts.
Practical Advice for People in the Zone
Use Passcodes, Not Biometrics: Courts are more likely to protect knowledge-based access than physical unlocks.
Turn Devices Off Before Travel: A powered-down phone cannot be unlocked by fingerprint or face scan.
Refuse Consent: You can verbally decline to consent to a search, though officers may continue under “reasonable suspicion.”
Ask for an Attorney: You always have the right to legal counsel before answering questions.
Document Interactions: If possible, record encounters or note agent names and badge numbers.
A Constitution Stretched Thin
The border search exception and the 100-mile zone together reveal a stark truth: constitutional protections are not applied evenly.
If you live in Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, New York City, or anywhere along America’s coasts, you live in a region where the government has far more power to stop, search, detain, and question you - both physically and digitally - than most citizens realize.
What began as a narrow national-security safeguard has evolved into a quiet system of geographical inequality, where the balance between liberty and enforcement shifts dramatically depending on a line no one can see.
As technology blurs the distinction between border and interior, the Founders’ promise of equal justice under law will only hold if courts and citizens demand it — not just at the borders of the nation, but within the hearts of the communities that call it home.
Reasonable Suspicion or Profiling by Design? How Accent and Color Became Legal Grounds for Detention
In early 2025, the United States Supreme Court quietly allowed a controversial practice to continue — one that exposes millions of people, including citizens, to government questioning and detention simply because of their appearance, accent, or job.
In Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (2025), the Court declined to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents from stopping and questioning individuals in the Los Angeles area based on a mix of factors: skin color, language, accent, and type of work. The 6–3 order reinstated a policy that had been halted by a lower court, which had found it unconstitutional and discriminatory.
The ruling was issued without a full hearing or written opinion. But its implications are enormous. By allowing these practices to resume, the Court effectively reaffirmed an older legal principle — that an individual’s ethnic appearance or language can be considered part of “reasonable suspicion” for immigration enforcement.
A Doctrine Rooted in Discrimination
The foundation for this practice dates back to United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975), where the Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents near the U.S.–Mexico border could stop vehicles if they had “reasonable suspicion” that the occupants were undocumented.
The Court explicitly said that “Mexican appearance” could be one factor among several, though not the only one, in forming suspicion. Even at the time, the language drew sharp criticism for opening the door to racial profiling.
Fifty years later, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo has made that door wider than ever.
What the Supreme Court Allowed
The plaintiffs in the Los Angeles case, represented by the ACLU and immigrant rights groups, had documented a pattern of ICE agents stopping Latino workers at day-labor sites, car washes, and landscaping jobs, demanding identification or proof of citizenship.
Many of those targeted were U.S. citizens or lawful residents who happened to speak Spanish or work manual labor jobs.
The district court issued an injunction, ruling that race, accent, and employment type cannot lawfully justify an investigatory stop, and that doing so violated both the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
The Supreme Court, however, stayed that injunction, meaning the government can continue the practice while the case proceeds. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented:
“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job.”
In practical terms, the Court’s order means ICE and CBP can continue using appearance, accent, and socioeconomic cues as components of “reasonable suspicion”, particularly within the 100-mile border zone, where constitutional protections are already weaker.
The Human Impact: Citizens Caught in the Net
For the millions of U.S. citizens who happen to speak English with an accent, work outdoors, or live in immigrant communities, this ruling blurs the line between law enforcement and harassment.
Truck drivers, janitors, fruit pickers, construction workers, and domestic laborers, the very people who keep essential industries running, now face a greater risk of being stopped, questioned, and detained not because of anything they have done, but because of how they look or sound.
Civil rights lawyers report a chilling trend: when ICE or Border Patrol detains U.S. citizens, those individuals rarely have the resources to fight back. Many are released only after producing birth certificates or Social Security cards, yet their detentions are rarely recorded or publicly reviewed.
The result is a quiet, unequal reality: for poor and working-class Americans of color, constitutional rights are less certain and more conditional.
The Inequality at the Heart of Enforcement
Immigration enforcement was once about controlling entry and exit at national borders. It has now become a system that disproportionately polices low-income people of color within the country’s interior.
Sociologists and legal scholars describe this as “class-based constitutionalism” — a structure where poor and working-class citizens experience government power more directly and more harshly than those with wealth or whiteness as protection.
A wealthy homeowner in Beverly Hills is unlikely to be stopped for speaking Spanish to their gardener. A landscaper in Fresno or El Paso might be stopped for the same conversation.
The Constitution, in theory, applies to both. In practice, it does not.
Where This Leads
The Supreme Court’s quiet decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo continues a long trend of deference to federal enforcement agencies in the name of “border control” - even when those agencies operate hundreds of miles inland.
Each such ruling normalizes a system in which appearance and class determine exposure to state power. It reinforces a social hierarchy where rights are not absolute, but negotiated; not universal, but conditional.
As Justice Sotomayor warned in her dissent, the danger is not just for immigrants - it is for anyone whose identity or livelihood falls outside the comfort zone of power.