New Federal Lawsuit
A federal class action lawsuit filed Monday accuses the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and several of its agencies of violating Americans’ constitutional rights by tracking and intimidating people who lawfully observed and documented federal immigration enforcement operations, including scanning their faces, recording their license plates, and threatening to label them as “domestic terrorists.” According to Politico, “Agents working for the Department of Homeland Security used facial recognition and license plate readers to surveil and threaten legal observers watching officers in Maine, activists said in a lawsuit filed Monday.”
Filed in U.S. District Court in Maine on behalf of Elinor Hilton and Colleen Fagan, the complaint asserts that DHS agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), have engaged in unconstitutional retaliation against individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights to observe, record, and report on public immigration enforcement activities.
Photos
The case centers on multiple incidents in Portland, Maine, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, where civilians were lawfully observing federal immigration enforcement when federal agents used surveillance tools to collect their information. In one widely shared social media video, Fagan, a social worker, is seen filming ICE agents when a masked officer scans her face with a smartphone and her car’s license plate. When she asks why, the agent reportedly responded: “Cause we have a nice little database … and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.”
That video, which has drawn viral attention, helped trigger the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that such interactions are part of a broader pattern in which federal agents have used facial recognition technology and apps that scan license plates to identify and track observers. This lawsuit is essentially saying that the First Amendment is being violated here, as they have been suppressing what the public has been able to do or say about the incidents that have occurred. “”Plaintiffs must either abandon their constitutional rights or accept being cataloged and branded as ‘domestic terrorists,'” reads the lawsuit, which was filed in federal district court in Maine on Monday. “That is a choice the Constitution does not require Plaintiffs, or anyone, to make,” according to NPR News.
Chilling Effects
Under the lawsuit’s allegations, observers who peacefully filmed or followed federal agents were told by law enforcement that they were interfering with operations, told they could be placed on a database or watchlist, or even had agents drive behind them to their own neighborhoods as a form of intimidation. Some Minnesota observers who followed agents in their cars described agents leading them to their homes, demonstrating they knew where they lived.
Courtesy of Nicolas Nova (Flickr CC0)One plaintiff, Hilton, says she was scared to go home after being told she could be added to a federal “domestic terrorist watchlist.”
The suit asserts four counts, all tied to the First Amendment, alleging that government surveillance and retaliation against observers based on their protected activity amounts to unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint suppression.
DHS Denials
DHS has denied the existence of any watchlist or database of domestic terrorists for people observing immigration enforcement. In prior statements responding to the viral video of the Maine encounter, then-DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin asserted that “there is NO database of ‘domestic terrorists’ run by DHS.”
She emphasized that while DHS agencies do investigate and refer threats and assaults against officers to appropriate law enforcement, simply videotaping or recording federal agents is not, in itself, a crime.
In testimony before Congress earlier this month, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons echoed that position when asked about the Maine viral video, saying he could not “speak for that individual” officer but reassuring lawmakers that no official database was tracking U.S. citizens.
Technology
Federal agents have increasingly had access to powerful surveillance tools in the field. In addition to facial recognition, apps such as Mobile Companion allow officers to scan license plates and automatically obtain identifying information.
Critics say DHS policies and statements have at times blurred lines between legitimate security interests and suppressing lawful activity. For example, internal advisories have labeled videotaping federal agents or publishing photos and videos online as “doxing” and potentially criminal behavior, an approach that defenders argue is meant to protect officer safety but opponents say could be used to chill reporting and oversight.
First Amendment
Legal experts say this lawsuit raises central questions about First Amendment rights, particularly the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” and to report on government conduct without fear of retaliation or surveillance.
“The plaintiffs must either abandon their constitutional rights or accept being cataloged and branded as ‘domestic terrorists,’” according to the lawsuit’s complaint. “That is a choice the Constitution does not require Plaintiffs, or anyone, to make.”
Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief from the court, asking for an immediate halt to surveillance practices they see as retaliatory and for the expungement of any data collected in connection with lawful observation.
Where Things Go Next
As this case moves through the courts, it may help define legal boundaries for surveillance and civil liberties in an era of expanding government technology.
Sources:
NPR News: A new lawsuit alleges DHS illegally tracked and intimidated observers
Politico News: DHS accused of using surveillance tech to track legal observers in Maine
Featured Image Courtesy of Paul Goyette’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image Courtesy of Nicolas Nova’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
