Welcome to the 100-Mile Constitution-Free Zone
Did you know that nearly two-thirds of Americans by population are living in what can only be described as a constitutional Twilight Zone?
It’s true. Thanks to an obscure, decades-old federal regulation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has declared a 100-mile perimeter around the U.S. border a so-called “reasonable distance” where they can stop, search, and detain without a warrant. That includes every inch of Florida, all of Hawaii, most of Maine and New Jersey, and parts of just about every other state. If you live in or even pass through this zone, your constitutional rights are on shakier ground than they should be.
And we’re not just talking about undocumented immigrants. Citizens. Legal residents. Visa holders. All subject to an entirely different standard of "justice" simply because of geography. Sound like government overreach? That’s because it is.
It’s true. Thanks to an obscure, decades-old federal regulation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has declared a 100-mile perimeter around the U.S. border a so-called “reasonable distance” where they can stop, search, and detain without a warrant. That includes every inch of Florida, all of Hawaii, most of Maine and New Jersey, and parts of just about every other state. If you live in or even pass through this zone, your constitutional rights are on shakier ground than they should be.
And we’re not just talking about undocumented immigrants. Citizens. Legal residents. Visa holders. All subject to an entirely different standard of "justice" simply because of geography. Sound like government overreach? That’s because it is.
A Law from 1953 - Seriously?
This border-zone authority is rooted in a regulation from 1953, a Cold War-era relic that defined 100 miles from the border as "reasonable" for CBP to operate without the usual constitutional checks. There was no public debate, no Congressional vote, and guess what? That rule hasn't been meaningfully updated in 70 years. Meanwhile, the number of Border Patrol agents has exploded from about 1,000 back then to more than 21,000 today.
We’re operating 21st-century surveillance tactics on a mid-20th-century legal foundation and that should worry anyone who cares about civil liberties.
We’re operating 21st-century surveillance tactics on a mid-20th-century legal foundation and that should worry anyone who cares about civil liberties.
Fourth Amendment? What Fourth Amendment?
Let’s be clear: The Fourth Amendment guarantees you the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But inside the 100-mile zone, CBP has claimed the authority to stop and search you without a warrant or probable cause. The Supreme Court has said, yes, brief immigration checkpoints are okay, but only under strict limitations. In practice? Those "brief" stops often turn into fishing expeditions.
And the violations are not just theoretical. The ACLU has documented countless incidents of unlawful detentions, baseless questioning, and invasive searches, all without sufficient cause. It’s not just about overstepping the line; it’s about obliterating it.
And the violations are not just theoretical. The ACLU has documented countless incidents of unlawful detentions, baseless questioning, and invasive searches, all without sufficient cause. It’s not just about overstepping the line; it’s about obliterating it.
Your Phone Is Not Border Property
Let’s talk tech. Within this “special” zone, CBP also claims it can search your devices (phones, laptops, you name it) without a warrant. That’s your photos, your emails, your entire digital life laid bare just because you arrived at the airport or live in the wrong ZIP code.
No crime, no suspicion, no due process. If that doesn’t sound like a constitutional crisis in slow motion, what does?
No crime, no suspicion, no due process. If that doesn’t sound like a constitutional crisis in slow motion, what does?
The Courts Are Cautiously Watching
To be fair, the courts haven’t given CBP a blank check. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976), the Supreme Court approved fixed immigration checkpoints, but made it crystal clear: these stops must be brief and focused solely on immigration questions. That’s not what’s happening on the ground.
Lawsuits from civil rights groups like the ACLU are piling up, aiming to rein in the unchecked authority granted to border agents. But the legal landscape is murky, and reform isn’t moving fast enough.
Lawsuits from civil rights groups like the ACLU are piling up, aiming to rein in the unchecked authority granted to border agents. But the legal landscape is murky, and reform isn’t moving fast enough.
This Isn’t Just a Border Issue—It’s an American Issue
Think this doesn’t affect you? Think again. This 100-mile zone includes 200 million people and entire major cities (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, San Diego). This isn't some remote outpost or line in the sand. It’s where you live, work, and travel.
And here’s the bottom line: No matter where you are in the U.S., your constitutional rights shouldn’t be subject to a mileage limit.
And here’s the bottom line: No matter where you are in the U.S., your constitutional rights shouldn’t be subject to a mileage limit.
We Don’t Need to Choose Between Security and Freedom
Yes, we need secure borders. No one’s arguing that. But security doesn’t mean surrendering our civil liberties. You don’t need to shred the Constitution to enforce immigration laws. In fact, it’s precisely in times of national concern that our rights matter most.
We can have smart, effective border policy without creating a second-class Constitution for those who live near the border or, let’s be honest, in most of the country.
We can have smart, effective border policy without creating a second-class Constitution for those who live near the border or, let’s be honest, in most of the country.
It’s Time for Reform, and for the Public to Wake Up
This is not just about one regulation or one agency. This is about preserving the integrity of the Constitution and resisting the slow creep of unchecked authority. It’s time to demand that Congress and the courts do their job: rein in this overreach and restore the rights guaranteed to every person on U.S. soil.
There were two bills proposed, one in the House and one in the Senate in 2019 that would have limited the scope of the CBP's jurisdiction through legislation. We need to support this type of legislation and the representatives that sponsored them.
The bills are:
H.R.3852 - Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act of 2019
S.2180 - Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act of 2019
There were two bills proposed, one in the House and one in the Senate in 2019 that would have limited the scope of the CBP's jurisdiction through legislation. We need to support this type of legislation and the representatives that sponsored them.
The bills are:
H.R.3852 - Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act of 2019
S.2180 - Border Zone Reasonableness Restoration Act of 2019
References
Key Statutes and Regulations
- 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) – Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
- Summary: Grants CBP authority to conduct warrantless searches and arrests within a "reasonable distance" of the U.S. border.
- Context: This statute underpins the legal foundation for CBP's operations within the 100-mile zone, allowing agents to board vehicles and vessels without a warrant to search for undocumented immigrants.
- 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2) – Code of Federal Regulations
- Summary: Defines "reasonable distance" as 100 air miles from any U.S. external boundary, including land borders and coastlines.
- Context: This regulation establishes the geographic scope of CBP's authority, effectively encompassing approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population within the 100-mile zone.
Relevant Legal Precedents
- United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
- Summary: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of fixed immigration checkpoints, provided they are brief and limited to questions about immigration status.
- Context: This decision supports the use of checkpoints within the 100-mile zone but emphasizes that stops must be brief and not extend beyond inquiries into immigration status.
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)
- Summary: The Court ruled that roving patrols by Border Patrol agents require reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation.
- Context: This case sets limits on the use of roving patrols within the 100-mile zone, requiring agents to have specific, articulable facts to justify stops.
Notable Lawsuits and Legal Actions
- ACLU of Michigan v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
- Summary: The ACLU of Michigan filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against CBP to obtain records related to its operations within the 100-mile zone.
- Outcome: The lawsuit resulted in a settlement requiring CBP to provide more detailed geographic information about its activities in Michigan.
- Context: This legal action highlights concerns over CBP's transparency and accountability in its enforcement practices within the 100-mile zone.
- ACLU of Michigan v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Summary: In 2016, the ACLU of Michigan filed a federal lawsuit against DHS and CBP for failing to disclose information about warrantless searches conducted within the 100-mile zone.
- Outcome: The lawsuit led to a settlement in 2018, compelling CBP to release documents detailing its enforcement activities and policies in Michigan.
- Context: This case underscores ongoing concerns about the scope of CBP's authority and the need for greater oversight of its operations within the 100-mile zone.