There absolutely is: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/11/12/border...

"A Boston federal court ruled that U.S. federal agents can’t conduct “suspicionless” searches of international travelers’ smartphones and laptops at the border and other ports of entry, a decision hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as a major victory for privacy rights. In a 48-page decision, U.S. district judge Denise Casper ruled that border officials need justifiable reasons to search a person’s electronic devices, which should be balanced against the privacy interests of travelers."

Not even close. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/30/black-us-d...

Well, “absolutely” is a bit strong based on District Court ruling currently on appeal.

Is it a false statement? Until an appeal actually overturns this, is this not the new standard?

> Until an appeal actually overturns this, is this not the new standard?

No, because the 11th Circuit Court or Appeals has already ruled to the contrary, while the 4th and 9th Circuits have rules similarly. However the First Circuit rules on this there is a Circuit split until the Supreme Court resolves it. So calling other side of that split the absolute rule is presumptuous.

https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/alasaad-v-mcaleenan-fede...

For forensic, as opposed to manual, searches of electronics there is under the district court judgement in Alasaad v. Nielsen (currently on appeal as Alasaad v. Wolf because of change in DHS leadership.)