Federal agents met immigration lawyer Andrew Lattarulo at the end of a Logan Airport jetway after a weekend in Aruba, took his phone without a warrant and copied everything on it. On Friday, November 13, 2026, a federal judge in Boston barred the government from looking at that data for now, finding Lattarulo is likely to prove the search was retaliation for his public videos criticizing immigration policy.
U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs granted a preliminary injunction in Lattarulo v. Mullin, No. 1:25-cv-12861-ADB (D. Mass.). We read the full 12-page memorandum and order. Here is what happened, what the judge found, and the question about airport phone searches she left open.
What happened at Logan
- Who he is. Lattarulo is an immigration lawyer and part owner of a law firm that represents “thousands of clients in active immigration proceedings,” the ruling says, citing his complaint. He runs a popular Instagram account with “know-your-rights” videos about immigration that regularly draw hundreds of thousands of views.
- The investigation. Homeland Security Investigations is investigating his firm for employing people without a legal right to work. The firm’s partner in charge of I-9 compliance, who is not an immigration lawyer, received a Notice of Suspect Documents on September 25, 2025, starting a ten-day window to verify the employees’ status.
- The trip. Both men went to Aruba for a weekend. The partner flew back to Logan on September 27 “without issue.” Lattarulo returned the next day after clearing U.S. customs preclearance in Aruba.
- The seizure. Three Customs and Border Protection agents and one HSI officer stopped him as he got off the plane. They seized his phone without a warrant and downloaded a complete copy of its data, which includes privileged attorney-client communications. The phone was returned by overnight delivery eight days later.
- The lawsuit. Lattarulo sued on October 2, 2025, and the court granted a temporary restraining order. The government says the data is in an unreadable format and wants to convert and search it, using a “taint team” to screen out privileged material.
What the judge found
To win a First Amendment retaliation claim, the retaliatory motive must be a “but-for” cause of the government’s action, under Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019), which we verified on CourtListener. Burroughs found Lattarulo is likely to meet that standard, for three reasons:
- An unusual tactic. The government offered no evidence that phone searches are common in this kind of employment investigation. “The fact that the government, after Lattarulo spoke out publicly against it, elected to adopt a highly unusual investigative method that appears designed to inflict a maximal burden on Lattarulo lends substantial support to an inference that its actions were pretextual,” she wrote.
- Too early. HSI’s own policy presumes employers who act within 10 business days of a Notice of Suspect Documents “have demonstrated reasonable care.” The seizure came three days in. “That aggressive deviation from protocol strongly suggests that the seizure did not arise from an ordinary investigative motive.”
- The partner who was not searched. The partner, who had the same or greater access to employment records but has not spoken publicly, flew home a day earlier and was not stopped. “Indeed, if the government was truly intent on seizing evidence at the first possible opportunity, [the partner], who returned to America a full day before Lattarulo, would have been a more logical target,” Burroughs wrote.
The government argued that having reasonable suspicion for the search should end the retaliation claim. The judge disagreed, pointing to the exception in Nieves for situations where officials typically use their discretion not to act, like someone “vocally complaining about police conduct” who is then “arrested for jaywalking.”
The government said it has more evidence that would show the search would have happened anyway, but would not present it in open court, citing the ongoing investigation. Lattarulo opposed a private review by the judge. On “the limited record that is before the Court,” Burroughs found he “is likely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment retaliation claim.”
The order
- Preserve, do not read. The government must “preserve the cell phone data in the current unreadable, unreviewable format until the conclusion of proceedings.”
- No destruction yet. The court would not order the data destroyed “given the preliminary nature of these proceedings.”
- Privilege. Burroughs rejected a separate compelled-disclosure claim because the government committed to using a taint team. She “strongly cautions the Government” to set up “a very conscientious protocol” if it is ever allowed to search, noting clients and suspect employees may overlap.
The open question: can agents search your phone at Logan to investigate a domestic case?
The judge did not rule on Lattarulo’s Fourth Amendment claim, but she laid out the problem.
- The border exception. At the border, the government can do “routine” searches of devices without suspicion and “non-routine” searches without a warrant if it has reasonable suspicion, according to the First Circuit’s 2021 decision in Alasaad v. Mayorkas, as quoted in the ruling.
- Suspicion of what? Alasaad described searches for “evidence of contraband or a border-related crime” in one place and for “evidence of activity in violation of the laws enforced or administered by CBP or ICE” in another.
- This case. Hiring unauthorized workers, under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, is a law ICE enforces, but “arguably is not a ‘border-related crime,'” Burroughs wrote. “Rather, it appears that the government seized on a fortuitous border crossing following a weekend vacation as an opportunity to search for evidence of a domestic crime it was already investigating.”
- Not decided. She said she is “not convinced” the First Circuit meant the exception to reach that, but “given the novelty of these questions,” she did not reach “a firm conclusion.”
What this means for travelers
The ruling is a preliminary injunction in one case, on a limited record. It does not hold that phone searches at Logan are unlawful, and the government’s border search authority still applies to international arrivals. What it shows is that a court will look at why a particular traveler was chosen, and that a search that looks targeted at someone’s speech can be stopped before the data is read. The government may appeal.
Frequently asked questions
Can customs search my phone at the airport without a warrant?
At the border, including international arrivals at Logan, the First Circuit has allowed routine device searches without suspicion and advanced searches with reasonable suspicion, according to Judge Burroughs’s summary of Alasaad v. Mayorkas. Whether that covers searches for evidence of unrelated domestic crimes is unsettled.
Who is Andrew Lattarulo?
An immigration lawyer and part owner of a law firm with thousands of immigration clients, who posts know-your-rights videos on Instagram, according to the ruling.
Did the judge order the government to delete the data?
No. The government must preserve it in its unreadable format until the case ends, and may not search it in the meantime.
What is a First Amendment retaliation claim?
A claim that the government took action against someone because of protected speech. The plaintiff must show the speech was a but-for cause of the action, under Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019).
Sources: Lattarulo v. Mullin, No. 1:25-cv-12861-ADB (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2026), Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 28), read in full. Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019), verified on CourtListener. Universal Hub, November 14, 2026, also reported the ruling. General information, not legal advice.