# Missouri Republicans Persist with Gerrymandered Map Despite Supreme Court Rejection; Second Circuit Narrows Fourth Amendment Protections at Border
Missouri's Republican leadership continues fighting for a gerrymandered congressional map even after the U.S. Supreme Court twice rejected the previous version. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has now entered the fray, rejecting calls to abandon the redistricting effort and signaling its willingness to review the redrawn map on appeal.
The Supreme Court issued two explicit rejections of Missouri's original gerrymandered map, making clear the justices found constitutional or statutory violations. Rather than accept the Court's direction, state Republicans have pursued a revised map through the Eighth Circuit. This persistence reflects the broader partisan battle over redistricting that has consumed federal courts for years. The Eighth Circuit's decision to hear the appeal despite the Supreme Court's prior rulings suggests the appellate court may be signaling its own skepticism of the new map or testing the boundaries of what courts will tolerate in partisan line-drawing cases.
The redistricting dispute has national implications. Courts across the country face similar gerrymandering challenges, and decisions in Missouri will influence how appellate judges handle states that persist with maps rejected by higher courts. The Supreme Court's prior benchslaps indicated the justices expected compliance, not renewed litigation strategies.
In a separate ruling with significant civil liberties implications, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the Fourth Amendment does not protect cell phones and digital devices from warrantless searches conducted at U.S. borders and customs checkpoints. The decision substantially narrows privacy protections for travelers entering the country and raises questions about the original intent of the Framers regarding searches and seizures.
The Second Circuit's holding permits border agents to conduct thorough examinations of cell phones, tablets, laptops, and other electronic devices without obtaining a warrant or establishing probable cause. Agents need only assert that the search occurs at a border crossing. The ruling creates a significant carve-out from standard Fourth Amendment protections, which typically require law enforcement to obtain warrants supported by probable cause before searching personal effects.
The practical impact reaches millions of Americans and foreign nationals crossing U.S. borders annually. Business travelers, journalists, attorneys, and ordinary citizens now face warrantless access to their phones, revealing communications with clients, sources, and family members. The decision particularly affects attorney-client privileged communications and journalist-source relationships, both traditionally protected under constitutional doctrine.
The Second Circuit's reasoning departed from earlier Fourth Amendment jurisprudence suggesting that digital searches merit heightened protection due to the intimate nature of cell phone data. The court effectively treated phones as ordinary luggage rather than repositories of highly personal information. Privacy advocates and civil rights organizations have signaled plans to challenge the ruling, potentially petitioning the Supreme Court to review whether border searches of digital devices require the same warrant and probable cause standards applied to searches of homes and offices.
Both decisions reflect ongoing tensions between government security interests and constitutional protections. Missouri's redistricting battle illustrates judicial tolerance for persistent litigation even after supreme court rejections, while the Second Circuit's cell phone ruling demonstrates how appellate courts can create significant constitutional carve-outs under the guise of border security authority.