Yesterday, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), filed a lawsuit challenging an egregious violation of the First Amendment by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). FIRE's website has a helpful description of the damning facts of the case (see also this summary by Reason's Tosi Akintola):
The freedom to criticize law enforcement without fear of punishment is an essential right in the United States. In fact, it's one of the things that separates our free nation from a police state. But officials at the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement don't seem to understand this.
Five months after a Rochester man, David Streever, wrote a critical email to the then-head of ICE during the agency's January crackdown in Minnesota, federal officers recently went to extraordinary lengths to confront and intimidate him — even going so far as to stake out his New York City hotel as he returned from an overseas vacation with his daughter.
That's an outrageous violation of an American's First Amendment rights. So today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a federal lawsuit to challenge ICE's efforts to scare Streever and others into silence and remind other government officials that such behavior is un-American, unconstitutional, and unacceptable in a free society….
In January, federal immigration agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a Minneapolis ICU nurse, during a tense encounter. Outraged, Streever wrote a stern email to then-acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, entitled "What's next" and calling the official a "monstrous human being" who will "go down in history as America's Reinhard Heydrich, the butcher," a reference to the infamous Nazi official.
The First Amendment unquestionably protects Streever's criticism. Writing an angry note to political leaders is an American tradition as old as the republic itself. That's why time and again, the Supreme Court has upheld that cherished freedom, warning against attempts to label heated political rhetoric as dangerous or unprotected.
FIRE is absolutely right. The organization first became famous for combating mostly left-wing speech codes and other abuses on college campuses. Here, they are working to counter a threat to free speech from the other side of the political spectrum. The consistency is admirable.
Sadly, this is far from the only case where ICE has violated free speech rights. In Tincher v. Noem (now redesignated Tincher v. Mullin), a federal district court found numerous examples of ICE and other federal immigration enforcement agencies using force and other illegal coercive tactics against peaceful protestors and journalists in Minnesota. An appellate court ruling later stayed the injunction issued by the district court, citing procedural considerations (e.g. - it ruled the injunction was likely overbroad). But that doesn't change the awful facts.
Evidence indicates that ICE has repurposed its Office of Professional Responsibility - which is supposed to monitor the agency's own compliance with law - to investigate and harass online critics.
ICE defenders claim its campaign of intimidation is justified by the supposed need to prevent "threats" and "doxxing" of agents. Actual threats of violence can be investigated and prosecuted. But, as the Streever case and others show, ICE's campaign of harassment and intimidation goes far beyond situations where actual threats are at issue. In addition, citizens have every right to criticize government officials -including law enforcement officers - by name. That's true even if doing so results in people sending those officials angry messages.
The issues at stake here go far beyond the specific case, or the particular issue of immigration enforcement. Law enforcement agencies cannot be allowed to use their power to target and harass their critics. Conservatives inclined to sympathize with ICE here should consider how they would reach if federal or state gun-law enforcers used similar tactics against gun-rights activists.
Sadly, ICE's abuses of civil liberties and other cruel and illegal actions go far beyond violations of the First Amendment. In an August 2025 article in The Hill, I summarized many of ICE's other abusive and unconstitutional actions - including detention without due process, widespread racial profiling, and more. Things have only gotten worse since then. This is just one of a number of ways in which our current system of mass deportation endangers the liberty of American citizens, as well as that of recent immigrants.
Lawsuits like that filed by FIRE can play a valuable role in constraining ICE's violations of constitutional rights. But case-by-case litigation can only do so much. Not all victims have the resources to go through prolonged litigation. And, even for those who sue and win, justice delayed is often justice denied.
The systematic nature of ICE's many abuses calls for a systematic solution. As I explained in the Hill article, and a later follow-up piece, we should abolish ICE and transfer its funds to real cops. That will simultaneously end ICE abuses and reduce crime. In the linked pieces, I develop the case for abolishing ICE in greater detail, and address various possible counterarguments.
