Greyhound has long said that it’s required to allow Customs and Border Protection agents to board its buses to demand the immigration status of passengers, with CBP more than happy to cite an obscure law that it says applies to anyone within 100 miles of a border as its permission slip to harass passengers. But about that: A memo authored by a top border official and obtained by the AP confirms that Greyhound does have the power to block agents from boarding, as advocates have been insisting this whole time.
Signed by former Border Patrol chief Carla Provost, writes the AP, “It confirms the legal position that Greyhound’s critics have taken: that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prevents agents from boarding buses and questioning passengers without a warrant or the consent of the company.” Greyhound, the report reads, “has said it does not like the agents coming on board, but it has nevertheless permitted them, claiming federal law demanded it. When provided with the memo by the AP, the company declined to say whether it would change that practice.” It most certainly should.
The harassment of Greyhound passengers by border agents isn’t at all new, but as with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, border agents have felt unleashed under the Trump administration. This has been confirmed in the words of border agents themselves: Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine obtained a 2017 email from a border official celebrating the loosening of standards as “an excellent opportunity, the likes of which we have not seen in a decade.” The official then sent off agents to search Greyhound buses with a "Happy hunting, stay safe, and have fun!"
Since then, border officials infamously interrogated Mohanad Elshieky, a stand-up comic and asylee who was returning home to Oregon from a gig in Washington. Elshieky, who is originally from Libya, said he “explained to them that I was granted asylum here in the United States,” showing the agents his Oregon driver’s license and work authorization card. “They told me that I was lying and these could pretty much be falsified.” The ordeal ended only after Elshieky threatened to call his lawyer on them. He has since sued the agency.
“In response to criticism over the past two years, Greyhound has said that it does not support or ‘consent’ to the bus searches, but that federal law left it no choice. The company said the immigration sweeps make for delays, missed buses and unhappy customers,” the AP reported. “Greyhound’s parent company, FirstGroup PLC, said last summer: ‘We are required by federal law to comply with the requests of federal agents. To suggest we have lawful choice in the matter is tendentious and false.’”
Nearly a dozen chapters of the ACLU wrote to Greyhound CEO Dave Leach and senior legal officer Tricia Martinez in 2018 and said that the company was “unnecessarily facilitating the violation of its passengers’ rights,” writing, “Greyhound recently has said that the company believes it is ‘required’ to “cooperate with [CBP] if they ask to board our buses.’ We are aware of no such requirement. Rather, Greyhound has a Fourth Amendment right to deny CBP permission to board and search its buses without a judicial warrant. For the following reasons, we urge Greyhound to change its policy and to refuse CBP permission to conduct invasive bus raids without a warrant.”
Border agents will continue trampling on the rights of people so long as they feel they can, so the ball is now in Greyhound’s court to protect its customers, as advocates and civil rights leaders have long demanded, and as this memo authored by CBP confirms is possible. Unless it wants the same kind of reputation as, say, Motel 6 after its collusion with ICE, which has cost the company millions in settlements. “This puts the pressure on Greyhound,” Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, told the AP. “Are you going to stand up and protect your customers or are you going to collaborate with the government and turn over your passengers to the Border Patrol?”