explaining that the Constitution’s use of the phrase “the people” in the First Amendment “sug- gests that ‘the people’ protected by” that amendment “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient 35 AKHMETSHIN v. BROWDER 563 Cite as 983 F.3d 542 (D.C. Cir. 2020) connection with this country to be consid- ered part of that community”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the Constitution’s use of the phrase “the people” in the First Amendment “sug- gests that ‘the people’ protected by” that amendment “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient 35 AKHMETSHIN v. BROWDER 563 Cite as 983 F.3d 542 (D.C. Cir. 2020) connection with this country to be consid- ered part of that community”
- holding that the Fourth Amendment protects only “the people” of the United States and has no application to search-and-seizure challenges where the challenger is a non-citizen/non-resident alien with no 39 Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 40 of 97 voluntary attachment to the United States and the area searched is located outside of the United States
- explaining that several factors counsel against overseas application of the warrant requirement including: “the absence of local judges or magistrates available to issue warrants, the differing and perhaps unascertainable conceptions of reasonableness and privacy that prevail abroad, and the need to cooperate with foreign officials”
- explaining that the Constitution’s use of the phrase “the people” in the First Amendment “suggests that ‘the people’ protected by” that amendment “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*279 Justice Stevens,
concurring in the judgment.
In my opinion aliens who are lawfully present in the United States are among those “people” who are entitled to the protection of the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment. Respondent is surely such a person even though he was brought and held here against his will. I therefore cannot join the Court’s sweeping opinion. * I do agree, however, with the Government’s submission that the search conducted by the United States agents with the approval and cooperation of the Mexican authorities was not “unreasonable” as that term is used in the first Clause of the Amendment. I do not believe the Warrant Clause has any application to searches of noncitizens’ homes in foreign jurisdictions because American magistrates have no power to authorize such searches. I therefore concur in the Court’s judgment.
The Court’s interesting historical discussion is simply irrelevant to the question whether an alien lawfully within the sovereign territory of the United States is entitled to the protection of our laws. Nor is comment on illegal aliens’ entitlement to the protections of the Fourth Amendment necessary to resolve this case.