Trump Admin Used Customs Law to Obtain Journalist's Phone Records Without Prior Judicial Approval

The Trump administration is using an obscure customs law to obtain private records from journalists, activists and organisations without first seeking approval from a judge, according to a report by The Guardian. The Department of Homeland Security has used administrative summonses under a 1930 customs statute to demand phone, social media and other records, with requests subject to internal approval and, in some cases, secrecy requirements.

The practice has drawn particular scrutiny because DHS used the mechanism after a federal judge had twice rejected government requests for information involving Minneapolis journalist Georgia Fort.

In February, federal prosecutors sought search warrants for YouTube account information belonging to Fort and former CNN anchor Don Lemon, who have pleaded not guilty to federal charges arising from a January protest at a St. Paul church that they were covering at ST. Paul church.

A federal magistrate judge rejected the warrant applications, initially finding that the government had not established probable cause and later finding that the renewed applications also failed to satisfy requirements of the Privacy Protection Act. The government later withdrew the YouTube search-warrant requests.

DHS also pursued Fort's records through administrative summonses. It had sought her phone records from T-Mobile in January and later served Google with a separate summons for YouTube information after the judge rejected the warrant applications.

It served Google with an administrative summons under 19 U.S.C. § 1509, a provision of federal customs law, without obtaining prior judicial approval. Google did not comply with the summons seeking Fort's account information, while T-Mobile complied with a demand for six months of her phone records, according to The Guardian.

The records covered more than 10,000 calls and text messages. Fort was not notified of the request before the government obtained the records, according to her lawyers.

A Customs Law at the Centre of the Dispute

Section 1509, part of the Tariff Act of 1930, authorises customs officials to examine records and summon people in investigations concerning customs entries, duties, fees, taxes, penalties and compliance with laws administered by the Customs Service. The statute allows certain summonses to be issued administratively rather than through a judge.

The controversy centres on whether DHS can use that authority to obtain records that have no apparent connection to customs enforcement.

Chris Duncan, a former DHS lawyer, told The Guardian that the statute provides broad powers only when there is a customs-related investigation.

'These laws have absolutely nothing to do with a domestic situation at a church, a social media post, even an immigration matter,' Duncan said.

John Roth, a former head of the DHS inspector general's office, called the use of the summons 'outrageous conduct' and an 'improper use' of the authority.

How The Fort Case Unfolded

Fort's case illustrates why the dispute has become particularly sensitive for press-freedom advocates.

After prosecutors failed twice to obtain judicial approval for her YouTube information, DHS sought related information through an administrative summons. The government then obtained her telephone records from T-Mobile even though Fort had not been given an opportunity to contest the request beforehand, according to her lawyers.

The records reportedly covered six months and more than 10,000 calls and text messages.

Fort is contesting federal charges arising from her coverage of the January protest. The use of an administrative summons does not by itself establish that the government violated the law. The unresolved legal question is whether §1509 authorises DHS to use the summons in circumstances unrelated to a customs investigation.

That distinction is central to the controversy.

Other Journalists and Groups Targeted by Records Demands

DHS has also used the provision in demands involving other journalists, media organisations, unions and non-profit groups, according to The Guardian. Among those identified were Democracy Now and podcaster Megyn Kelly.

The breadth of the requests has raised concerns among press-freedom and civil-liberties organisations that access to communications data could expose journalists' sources or reveal information about political activity.

The issue comes as federal agencies face broader scrutiny over attempts to obtain journalists' communications records. In July, the Justice Department withdrew subpoenas seeking phone records and grand-jury testimony from New York Times reporters after the newspaper challenged the demands.

The Legal Fight Ahead

The immediate central legal question is whether courts will allow DHS to use Section 1509 for records unrelated to customs investigations.

Fort's case could provide an important test because the government had already sought judicial approval for related information and was turned down before pursuing an administrative summons.

For now, DHS has obtained at least some records through the disputed mechanism, while legal advocates are challenging whether the statute gives the agency that authority.

The controversy is therefore not simply about whether the administration can obtain private records without prior judicial approval. It is about whether a customs law written nearly a century ago can be used to obtain modern communications data in cases that have nothing to do with customs enforcement.