This shit is just insane, and remember, the "Border" legally extends 100 miles from the coast, meaning that covers the entire urbanized eastern and western seaboards, or 2/3 of the US population.

Malik sued the DHS and CBP in early 2021, after his phone was seized, searched, and held by the CBP. One of Malik’s many concerns was the government’s warrantless access to privileged attorney-client information. This is what happened during the search Malik sued over.

[snip]

What’s not explained here is what the DHS was searching for. That it has the power to engage in warrantless searches of devices doesn’t automatically create reasons for it to do so. Very little was explained to Malik, other than that the officers could do this and, therefore, they were going to do this. All of this happened despite Malik being a government-approved member of the CBP’s Global Entry Trusted Traveler Program, which should have seen him subjected to less scrutiny when crossing borders, rather than what he was actually subjected to.

Following some hard questions posed to the DHS by Senator Ron Wyden, Malik sought to obtain more information to use in his lawsuit against the agency.

Discovery closed on February 11, 2022. Malik moved to reopen discovery a few weeks later, citing a public letter that United States Senator Ron Wyden sent to DHS’s Inspector General. Among other things, the letter alleges that DHS conducted “bulk surveillance of Americans’ financial records” by collecting troves of “transaction data” from Western Union. While the letter asks DHS to investigate these allegations, it does not address individual border searches, phone records, decryption, or DHS’s data-retention policies. The district court denied Malik’s motion.

and the absolute (Bleakly) hilarious part;

That being said, the lawsuit isn’t entirely dead. Malik also wants to ensure the DHS destroys all the data it pulled from his phone, which includes plenty of privileged material. Not only were there attorney-client communications, but likely information dealing with ongoing immigration litigation against the government — work product that is likewise shielded from government snooping.

The Fifth Circuit agrees Malik is right to demand this form of expungement and the DHS is wrong to refuse to destroy this seized data unless Malik drops his lawsuit. (All emphasis in the original.)

In the district court, DHS argued that “the information is being retained only because Malik requested a litigation hold,” and that Malik cannot not rely on this self-inflicted injury to show standing. And, on appeal, DHS has represented that it will “destroy the remaining data in its possession and will be happy to provide an appropriate certification to Malik that all data in the government’s possession has been destroyed and that no data was transferred to any other governmental or nongovernmental entity or person” as soon as these “proceedings” conclude. DHS made similar representations to the district court. In other words, DHS argues that this lawsuit is the only obstacle separating Malik from the expungement that he seeks.

We do not agree that Malik’s injury is self-inflicted. The injury is that DHS still possesses privileged information that it unlawfully seized from his phone. Malik did not volunteer that data to DHS, and he has no control over how DHS handles it. That is why Malik came to court. DHS argues that it will delete the data if Malik non-suits this case. But while the possibility of an alternate form of relief confirms that Malik has suffered an injury, it does not mean that he caused the injury. That is especially true here, where Malik lacks any power to redress his injury. Instead, the most he can do is non-suit this case and trust DHS to delete the data. Where redress cannot be self-actuated, we are hesitant to conclude that an injury is self-inflicted.

We also do not agree that DHS can moot Malik’s suit merely by promising to delete the data once the suit is over. By its very nature, a promise of some future action cannot redress Malik’s injury now. DHS’s promise, then, supports no more than a prediction that this case could be moot in the future. But it is not presently moot. Rather, DHS still has Malik’s data. Just as we will not rely on “conjectural or hypothetical” facts to find that standing is present, so too we will not rely on predictions and what-ifs to find that standing is absent. We hold that Malik has standing to seek expungement.

Yeah, they're literally saying "we'll comply with the law only when he drops the lawsuit against us".

That’s great but there’s nothing in here for Malik, other US citizens, or their constitutional rights. When it comes to the border, the house always wins. What Malik is being given here is nothing more than existing precedent regarding expungement of privileged material. What no one is being given is any more protection from their own government just because they cross borders or seek to board international flights. When it comes to anything the government calls a “border,” the rights we were guaranteed are mostly null and void.

Emphasis in last paragraph mine.