In addition to needing a warrant, the “Protecting Data at the Border Act” would prevent agents from denying access to US citizens who refuse to hand over devices, passwords or log-in credentials. Though, federal agents could override the need for a warrant in the event of immediate danger, conspiratorial activities threatening national security or hints of organized crime — which could leave room for interpretation. “The border is quickly becoming a rights-free zone for Americans who travel,” Wyden reportedly said in a statement. “The government shouldn’t be able to review your whole digital life simply because you went on vacation, or had to travel for work.”

This isn’t a new issue, and Senators Wyden and Rand have led similar legislation in the past. In 2017, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argued that federal border agents at international airports should obtain warrants before looking through passengers’ devices. At the time, EFF noted noted that the number of such searches had more than doubled since President Trump assumed office. It’s no secret, either, that border agents don’t always delete data after they transfer it to their servers.

As Engadget noted in 2017, border agents live in a gray area that’s not exactly protected by the Fourth and Fifth amendments, which provide some protections against unreasonable searches and self-incrimination. If it succeeds, the new bill would, theoretically, strengthen those protections — at least for US citizens.

Agency policies let officers search devices for generic law enforcement purposes like investigating bankruptcies and consumer portection laws, the ACLU said. Officers can also search devices to collect data about someone else, such as a friend that might be an illegal immigrant or the foreign sources for a journalist. CBP and ICE can also seize devices to produce “risk assessments” or push existing cases forward, and they’ll consider requests for data from other US agencies.

Agents for the two can not only keep information taken from devices, but share it with other government bodies in the US and abroad, the ACLU added.

The ACLU’s motion for judgment argues that the searches violate Fourth Amendment rights preventing unreasonable searches and seizures. However, it added that these searches effectively stomped on the First Amendment as well, as people would “self-censor and avoid expressing dissent” if they knew that border agents would sift through their data. The plaintiffs in the case include both a journalist seemingly targeted for his reporting as well as another whose phone included attorney-client privileged content.

CBP told Engadget that it was “unable to comment on matters under litigation.” However, the ACLU didn’t mince words. It saw authorities using the border as a pretense for an “end run around the Constitution,” and hoped a judgment would force border agents to get warrants for future searches. There’s no guarantee the ACLU will succeed in obtaining a judgment or winning if it has to go to trial. Should it win, though, border officials may have to dramatically limit the scope of their searches.