The worst part is the judges reasoning. From the NY Times article [1]:
>In his opinion, Judge Edward R. Korman of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the plaintiffs did not have standing for their lawsuit because such searches occur so rarely that “there is not a substantial risk that their electronic devices will be subject to a search or seizure without reasonable suspicion.”
>Even if the plaintiffs did have standing, Judge Korman found that they would lose on the merits of the case, ruling that the government does not need reasonable suspicion to examine or confiscate a traveler’s laptop, cellphone or other device at the border.
edit: I find this reasoning quite similar to the recent ruling in NSA surveillance of "[You wouldn't have known about it without the Snowden leak, so you don't have standing since Congress did not intent for you to know about surveillance]".
>In his opinion, Judge Edward R. Korman of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the plaintiffs did not have standing for their lawsuit because such searches occur so rarely that “there is not a substantial risk that their electronic devices will be subject to a search or seizure without reasonable suspicion.”
>Even if the plaintiffs did have standing, Judge Korman found that they would lose on the merits of the case, ruling that the government does not need reasonable suspicion to examine or confiscate a traveler’s laptop, cellphone or other device at the border.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/business/judge-upholds-us-...
edit: I find this reasoning quite similar to the recent ruling in NSA surveillance of "[You wouldn't have known about it without the Snowden leak, so you don't have standing since Congress did not intent for you to know about surveillance]".