Government Agencies Use Import Laws to Access Private Records Without Warrants
Washington, Saturday, 29 August 2026.
The Department of Homeland Security is using customs laws to secretly access journalists’ and non-profits’ private data without judicial approval, raising severe compliance and privacy risks.
DHS Deploys Customs Statute for Domestic Surveillance
On August 29, 2026, reports confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security is utilizing administrative summonses under 19 USC 1509 to request data on journalists, non-profits, and labor unions from telecommunications and social media firms [1]. This legal mechanism, originally intended for customs and import duty investigations, allows DHS officials to bypass judicial review and probable cause requirements typically mandated for domestic surveillance [1]. Corporate legal officers and enterprise risk managers are currently assessing the compliance risks posed by this precedent, as private sector platforms face demands to hand over sensitive user data without court oversight [1]. The Trump administration’s use of this statute marks a significant shift in how federal agencies interact with technology companies regarding user privacy [1].
Case Study: The Fort and Lemon Investigation
The application of these summonses is evident in the case of journalists Georgia Fort and Don Lemon, who were covering a protest at a church in Minneapolis in January 2026 [1]. After federal prosecutors twice sought search warrants for their YouTube account information in February 2026, a judge rejected both requests due to a lack of probable cause and concerns regarding journalist notification [1]. Approximately one month after withdrawing the search warrant requests in late March 2026, the DHS served Google with an administrative summons using the customs statute to obtain the same data [1]. Legal filings revealed that Homeland Security Investigations agents also sought Fort’s phone records from T-Mobile using this method, bypassing judicial review despite prior warnings from Magistrate Judge John Docherty regarding the Privacy Protection Act [2].
Corporate Compliance and Legal Pushback
Technology companies are placed in a difficult position when receiving these administrative summonses, as Google noted in April 2026 that it lacked sufficient information to evaluate the legal basis for subpoenas relating to importation violations [2]. On August 6, 2026, Fort and Lemon filed motions to dismiss, explicitly challenging the government’s use of customs summonses to circumvent legal discovery processes and the Privacy Protection Act [2]. Defense attorneys argued that the government deliberately attempted to circumvent traditional legal avenues, with filings indicating that six months of Fort’s call records were obtained and shared with 48 defendants without proper disclosure [2]. Legal counsel for the journalists has notified the government of intent to pursue civil remedies and request the court sequester cell and text logs obtained through these means [2].
Broader Implications for Civil Liberties
Beyond individual journalists, the DHS has utilized these summonses to acquire financial records of organizations including the Sunrise Movement, the Service Employees International Union, and Voices for Racial Justice, none of which were charged with crimes [1]. A 2017 DHS Inspector General report previously identified inconsistent and improper use of 1509 summonses by Customs and Border Protection officials, yet reforms remain a concern [1]. Legal experts argue that this practice shifts the burden of legal defense onto users and non-profit groups, costing tens of thousands of dollars to challenge [1]. As of August 28, 2026, ongoing legal filings continue to contest the scope and legality of these data collection methods [2].