(BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS) Immigration attorney Andrew Lattarulo says federal agents seized his smartphone at Boston Logan International Airport in early October 2025 after he returned from Aruba, prompting a fast-moving court fight over the limits of border searches and the protection of attorney-client communications.
In a lawsuit filed in the District of Massachusetts, Lattarulo contends the seizure and any attempt to search the device violate his First and Fourth Amendment rights because the phone contains confidential client information and privileged legal work. A federal judge quickly stepped in: Judge Allison D. Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order (TRO), blocking the government from accessing the device or reviewing any data already collected while the case proceeds.
Seizure, Lawsuit, and Emergency Relief
Lattarulo, who has publicly criticized U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and related enforcement practices, alleges agents from Homeland Security and Border Control targeted him because of his advocacy and representation of immigrants in removal and detention cases.
According to the complaint:
– Agents took his phone at the airport after international arrival screening and refused to return it.
– His legal team moved for emergency relief, warning that even a so-called “filter team” review—where government attorneys screen material for privileged content—would harm clients and undermine the trust essential to the attorney-client relationship.
Judge Burroughs’ TRO:
– Freezes any access to the phone’s contents, including any mirrored data or copies.
– Remains in place while the court decides next steps.
– Signals the court sees a serious legal question and potential risk of harm if the government proceeds.
The order also reflects growing unease in federal courts about digital border searches that capture legal files, medical records, and personal communications on devices people carry daily.
Claims About Client Confidentiality and Chilling Effects
Lattarulo’s counsel emphasizes that he regularly handles:
– Removal defense
– Bond motions
– Protection claims for noncitizens who share sensitive life details
They argue forced disclosure would:
– Chill clients from speaking openly with their lawyer
– Expose legal strategies to agencies pursuing deportation
– Undermine the trust necessary for effective representation
Analysis by VisaVerge.com notes similar disputes have multiplied as attorneys, journalists, and activists report device checks at ports of entry, increasing calls for clearer guardrails that respect constitutional protections at the border.
Broader Legal and Practical Stakes
This case sits within an ongoing debate over how far the government can go when searching phones and laptops at the border, and whether special rules apply when a device belongs to a lawyer.
Key legal context:
– Under current policy, officers may conduct basic device inspections without a warrant at ports of entry under the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment.
– Smartphones contain vast personal and professional data, prompting courts to draw sharper lines—especially when privileged material is at stake.
– A 2021 Fifth Circuit decision allowed the government to use filter teams to review attorney devices in some settings; critics say filter teams are not a substitute for independent judicial review.
Lattarulo’s TRO does not resolve these broader conflicts. It pauses review while the court considers:
1. Whether the seizure and any planned search go too far
2. Whether less intrusive alternatives were available
3. Whether agents’ actions were motivated by his protected speech
If the court finds credible evidence of viewpoint targeting or retaliation for criticism of immigration enforcement, that could bolster the First Amendment claim and alter how agencies handle lawyers’ devices.
Concrete Risks for Immigration Clients and Lawyers
For immigration attorneys and their clients, the stakes are practical and immediate:
– Sensitive records—defense strategies, witness lists, draft filings—could give the government a tactical advantage if disclosed.
– The risk that clients will stop sharing case updates, documents, or evidence is substantial.
– Lattarulo’s filing emphasizes his phone is central to daily case management and confidential communications.
Border setting matters:
– Officers regularly cite urgent security needs at hubs like Boston Logan International Airport.
– The Supreme Court has recognized cellphone searches as especially invasive due to the volume and detail of stored data.
– Some courts require heightened justification before allowing comprehensive forensic reviews that copy entire datasets.
Government Protections and Critics’ Concerns
Government tools for handling sensitive material include:
– Segregating files
– Using taint/filter teams to screen for privileged content
Critics’ concerns:
– The same agency overseeing the filter may also oversee the investigation, raising conflict-of-interest worries.
– Lattarulo’s team argues only a court-supervised process—with notice to the attorney and a chance to assert privilege—properly balances national security and constitutional rights.
– This argument aligns with legal ethics obligations to protect client confidences and take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized access.
Practical Advice for Travelers and Attorneys
Travelers and attorneys can take steps to reduce risk at ports of entry:
– Carry “clean” devices with minimal client data when traveling internationally.
– Store sensitive materials on secure servers rather than locally.
– Use strong passcodes instead of biometrics, which raise separate legal questions.
– If an officer asks to inspect a device, ask:
– For the legal basis of the search
– The scope of the search
– For the presence of a supervisor (to create a record)
For policy details and traveler rights, see the CBP page: CBP: Border Searches of Electronic Devices.
Possible Outcomes and Implications
Potential paths forward:
– If the court converts the TRO into a preliminary injunction, it could block access longer and set conditions for any future review.
– If the judge denies further relief, the government may argue that a filter team and internal protocols sufficiently protect privilege and the public interest.
Either outcome is likely to influence:
– Training and supervision of border officers
– Litigation strategy for attorneys
– How agencies handle attorney devices nationwide
Motive, Discovery, and the Public Record
Lattarulo’s prior public criticism of ICE complicates the matter. His lawyers allege this was not a routine inspection but a punitive act tied to his speech on social media and television.
Evidence they may develop includes:
– Timing of the seizure
– Officer comments or conduct
– Patterns of treatment at ports of entry
The government may counter that decisions were based on neutral factors and standard procedures. The court will evaluate motive through discovery and testimonial records about airport decision-making.
The TRO shows courts can act quickly to protect legal rights when privileged data is at risk, but the broader legal landscape remains unsettled.
People with pending immigration matters should:
– Ask their attorneys how to protect files during travel
– Consider updating client agreements to warn about border searches
– Limit sensitive communications during transit
Next Steps in the Case
With the TRO in place, Judge Burroughs will likely set a schedule for further briefing and argument. Lattarulo’s counsel aims to secure longer-term protection, while the government may seek to dissolve or narrow the order.
This dispute—originating at Boston Logan but rooted in nationwide rules—could become a touchstone for how courts weigh border authority against constitutional protections afforded to everyone carrying a phone, including the attorneys who defend them.
This Article in a Nutshell
Andrew Lattarulo, an immigration attorney who has criticized ICE, alleges Homeland Security and Border Control agents seized his smartphone at Boston Logan International Airport in October 2025 after an international flight from Aruba. He sued in the District of Massachusetts, arguing the seizure and any search would violate his First and Fourth Amendment rights because the device contains privileged client communications and legal work. Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order preventing government access to the phone and any copied data while the court reviews the claims. The case spotlights national debates about digital border searches, use of filter teams, and how courts should protect attorney-client privilege at ports of entry. Potential outcomes include a preliminary injunction, judicial guidance on less intrusive alternatives, and scrutiny of whether the seizure reflected viewpoint-based targeting. The dispute has practical implications for immigration attorneys and clients who rely on confidentiality for effective representation and may affect training and procedures at airports nationwide.
