Judge Blocks Access to Copied Phone Data Amid First Amendment Concerns

Judge Blocks Access to Copied Phone Data Amid First Amendment Concerns

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction, preventing authorities from accessing data copied from an immigration attorney’s phone. The decision stems from concerns that the phone seizure may have been an act of retaliation for protected speech under the First Amendment. While the phone itself has been returned, a complete copy of its contents remains in government custody, unreadable and unsearchable, pending the outcome of the legal case.

This ruling highlights ongoing legal debates surrounding border searches of electronic devices and the potential for such searches to infringe upon constitutional rights. The case involves Andrew Lattarulo, an immigration attorney who also uses social media to share information about immigrant rights.

Protecting Copied Data While Litigation Continues

U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued the order on November 12, 2026, barring federal authorities from accessing the copied data. This means the government must keep the data in its current unreadable state until the legal proceedings are finished. The judge decided against ordering the destruction of the copied data at this stage. Instead, the material will be preserved but inaccessible for review.

The government had sought permission to convert the copied data into a searchable format. However, Judge Burroughs determined that allowing a search at this point could cause Lattarulo irreparable harm to his privacy. The government stated that if a search were eventually permitted, a specialized team would be used to ensure privileged client information was not reviewed.

Attorney’s Phone Seized Without a Warrant

The incident occurred on September 28, 2025, when Lattarulo was stopped by Customs and Border Protection agents and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) officers at Boston Logan International Airport upon returning from a trip. Without a warrant, officers seized his iPhone 15 Pro Max and created a full copy of all data stored on it. The phone was returned to Lattarulo eight days later. The copied data, however, was in a format that could not be read or searched at the time.

Lattarulo’s legal team argued that the data contained confidential attorney-client communications. Lattarulo is a partner at Georges Cote LLP and represents individuals in immigration cases. He also actively shares know-your-rights information on Instagram, where his videos often gain significant viewership.

Timing of the Search Raises Retaliation Questions

Judge Burroughs pointed to Lattarulo’s public stance against certain immigration policies and his work representing immigrants as protected activities. The judge also considered the timing of the phone search and the circumstances surrounding it. Lattarulo’s firm had received a Notice of Inspection on September 8, 2025, followed by a Notice of Suspect Documents on September 25. The phone search took place just three days after the second notice. This occurred even though HSI policy typically allows employers ten business days to address questions about work authorization.

The judge noted that Lattarulo’s law partner, Audai Cote, had similar or greater access to employment records, had not publicly discussed immigrant rights, and returned from the same trip without his phone being searched. The judge suggested that Cote would have been a more logical target if the investigators were solely interested in employment records at the earliest opportunity. This comparison led the judge to believe that Lattarulo might have been searched specifically because of his protected speech.

The government has denied targeting Lattarulo based on his speech. They maintain that the seizure was part of an HSI investigation into whether the firm was employing individuals without proper work authorization. The government also indicated it had additional evidence to support the search but did not publicly disclose it, citing the ongoing investigation. Lattarulo’s lawyers believe he was targeted due to his immigration advocacy and social media presence. It is important to remember that the judge’s findings at this stage are preliminary and not a final decision on these claims.

The Fourth Amendment Issue Remains Unresolved

The government contended that its authority at the border allowed it to search the phone. However, Judge Burroughs questioned whether this authority applied to an investigation into alleged employment violations that were unrelated to Lattarulo’s travel. The judge suggested that the government may have used the border crossing as an opportunity to search for evidence of a domestic crime it was already investigating.

While directives from CBP and ICE permit border searches of electronic devices without suspicion, these searches are subject to specific rules and laws. Judge Burroughs did not definitively rule on whether the seizure itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The current order focuses on controlling access to the copied data while the case moves forward.

Previous Orders Restricted Data Review

Lattarulo filed his lawsuit on October 2, 2025, seeking the return of his phone, a ban on searching it, and the destruction of any collected information. On October 3, Judge Burroughs issued an order directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and CBP not to search the phone. During a hearing on October 7, a prosecutor stated that the phone had been returned but the extracted data would not be deleted. The court expressed concern that this data could be used to identify and arrest immigrants. On October 20, the judge again prohibited officials from reviewing the copied data while she considered whether to order its destruction.

Border Search Rules Continue to Be Debated

The number of electronic device searches conducted by CBP has significantly increased. In fiscal year 2025, CBP performed 55,318 such searches, which is nearly eleven times the number from 2012. A notable portion of these searches, nearly a quarter, involved U.S. citizens. The legal framework governing these border searches remains a subject of legal contention. In one case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that border agents do not need suspicion to search a traveler’s property, including their phone.

This contrasts with the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Riley v. California, which generally requires a warrant for police to search a phone during an arrest. That ruling, however, applied to searches incident to arrest, not border searches. In another related case, the Fifth Circuit upheld DHS’s use of a filter team and found reasonable suspicion to seize a lawyer’s phone based on a connection to an arms dealer. The ongoing case of Lattarulo v. Noem will be watched for further developments and any eventual decision on whether the preserved phone data may be accessed.

Frequently Asked Questions