PHILADELPHIA, Pa. — The ACLU of Pennsylvania has sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, seeking records about the agency’s alleged efforts to identify anonymous social media users who criticized immigration enforcement policies, according to the Hanford Sentinel.
According to the lawsuit, the civil liberties group is seeking a court order forcing ICE to release information about administrative subpoenas sent to tech companies requesting data on individuals tracking immigration enforcement operations or criticizing immigration policy. The group wants to know whether there was an attempt to unmask such individuals as part of an effort to intimidate them into silence.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania made a Freedom of Information Act request in February, asking for copies of ICE administrative subpoenas and other information about attempts to identify people critical of the agency’s enforcement activities online. The request was not honored by the agency, prompting the group to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Attorneys representing the ACLU argue that such attempts to unmask anonymous critics raise serious constitutional issues because anonymous political speech is protected under the First Amendment. In the lawsuit, the agency’s procedures for issuing so-called unmasking subpoenas were described as not transparent to the public.
As explained by Ari Shapell, an attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the frequency of unmasking requests made by the agency remains unknown. Although there were several high-profile instances in which ICE obtained private information about individuals online, that does not mean those were the only requests made.
“My fear is that ICE has been using this as a tool in many cases and getting personal identifying information about people,” Shapell said, adding that only a small number of these requests become public through litigation.
The lawsuit also asks the court to declare that the agency unlawfully failed to respond to the records request and compel ICE to provide the information immediately.
As reported, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent administrative subpoenas to tech companies demanding identification of anonymous critics. The issue caused concern among civil liberties organizations, which believe the subpoenas can discourage individuals from engaging in protected speech online.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania cited various examples of cases in which people became aware of ICE’s use of administrative subpoenas to gain access to private data. As described in the complaint, subpoenas were sent by the government to Meta demanding data related to a Montgomery County grassroots organization keeping tabs on the immigration process. In response, the court blocked the company from complying, and the subpoena was rescinded.
Another case in the lawsuit refers to an instance in which ICE sent a subpoena to Google in order to gather personal information on an anonymous critic of the agency’s deportation policy. The person had contacted the Department of Homeland Security by email to express disagreement with a case covered by the media. Later, the person was visited by agents who questioned him about his message, and the subpoena was eventually withdrawn.
As noted in the complaint, the issue of ICE subpoenas goes beyond the specific cases because administrative subpoenas do not require that people whose information is sought by the agency be notified. In practice, it depends on the company itself whether it informs the individual user of a subpoena it has received.
Members of Congress also criticized the use of subpoenas to spy on people, calling the requests a violation of privacy and free speech rights. U.S. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon called the subpoenas a form of spying on people engaged in what she said was protected speech under the First Amendment.
On the other hand, Department of Homeland Security officials responded that the agency follows federal law when issuing subpoenas.
The purpose of the lawsuit is to shed light on how often the agency has used subpoenas and whether such practices are consistent with federal laws requiring transparency under the Freedom of Information Act.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
