Pull to refresh
Logo
Lawsuits challenge federal surveillance and intimidation of ICE observers

Lawsuits challenge federal surveillance and intimidation of ICE observers

Rule Changes

Common Cause joins ACLU and Protect Democracy in accusing DHS, DOJ, and FBI of punishing people who record immigration enforcement

Yesterday: Common Cause files sweeping observer intimidation lawsuit

Overview

Updated Yesterday

Seven Common Cause members say federal officers photographed them, followed them, pepper-sprayed them, or showed up at their homes because they watched immigration enforcement operations. The watchdog nonprofit filed a 94-page complaint Thursday in Washington, D.C., against the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and related agencies, arguing those encounters violated First Amendment and privacy rights.

The suit is the broadest of several pending challenges. It asks a federal judge to bar the agencies nationwide from intimidating or retaliating against observers, and to expunge records already collected on them. It is the first to consolidate incidents across multiple states and to seek national relief.

Why it matters

A ruling for the plaintiffs could bar federal agencies nationwide from surveilling or retaliating against anyone who films immigration enforcement.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

94
Pages in the Common Cause complaint
The lawsuit consolidates incidents from observers in at least six states.
7
Common Cause members who described encounters with federal officers
Incidents in Maryland, Minnesota, and New Jersey include being photographed, followed, and pepper-sprayed.
15
Activists charged in Minnesota for conspiracy to impede ICE
The charges stem from an investigation the suit says was authorized by NSPM-7.
2026-09-23
Hearing on Memphis observer's preliminary injunction request
A separate ACLU case asks the court to block the Memphis Safe Task Force from retaliating against observers.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Play

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Most of these play right now — no account needed. Sign up to save scores, keep a streak, and unlock Debate and Predict. Log in Sign Up
Predict 3 ways this could play out. Back the one you believe — contrarian picks score more when a scenario has a resolution date. Log in to play

People Involved

Organizations Involved

Timeline

January 2025 September 2026

11 events Latest: Yesterday Showing 8 of 11
Tap a bar to jump to that date
  1. Agents make second visit to Demster's home

    Surveillance

    Second visit in four days, documented in ACLU court filing.

  2. Task force agents visit Demster's home

    Surveillance

    Agents go to Demster's residence and take photos or video of him.

  3. Observer's Global Entry revoked after ICE stop

    Retaliation

    Customs and Border Protection revokes Khalili's Global Entry one day after ICE officers photographed him. Later reinstated.

  4. DOJ issues memo operationalizing NSPM-7

    Policy

    Memo extends NSPM-7 framework to investigations of activists. Exact date not confirmed.

  5. NSPM-7 links observership to domestic terrorism

    Policy

    National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 ties impeding immigration enforcement to domestic terrorism. Exact date not confirmed in sources.

  6. Second Trump administration begins

    Political

    New administration begins issuing national security directives, including NSPM-7.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

1956–1971

COINTELPRO (1956–1971)

The FBI ran a covert program of surveillance, infiltration, and harassment targeting civil rights, anti-war, and other political groups it deemed subversive. Agents labeled legitimate activists as threats and used informants, wiretaps, and smear campaigns against them.

Then

The 1975 Church Committee hearings exposed the program and forced the FBI to adopt domestic security guidelines limiting surveillance of political activity.

Now

The program became the defining example of federal surveillance of lawful political activity, shaping decades of First Amendment jurisprudence.

Why this matters now

The Common Cause suit makes a similar argument: that the federal government has labeled lawful observers as 'domestic terrorists' and used surveillance tools to punish them for exercising protected speech.

January–April 1975

Church Committee (1975)

The Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations, chaired by Senator Frank Church, investigated abuses by the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies. It documented warrantless surveillance of American citizens, including civil rights leaders and journalists.

Then

The committee's findings led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and lasting restrictions on domestic intelligence gathering.

Now

It established the principle that presidential directives cannot authorize surveillance of American citizens without statutory and judicial oversight.

Why this matters now

The plaintiffs argue that NSPM-7 and the DOJ memo are being used to authorize exactly the kind of domestic surveillance the Church Committee found unconstitutional — and that the repeal of guardrails on facial recognition and plate readers made it easier.

August 2011

Glik v. Cunniffe (2011)

The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that a citizen has a First Amendment right to record police officers performing their duties in public. Simon Glik was arrested for filming an arrest on Boston Common; the court ruled the arrest was unconstitutional.

Then

Glik's charges were dropped and the city settled. The ruling became a widely cited precedent for recording police activity.

Now

The decision cemented the right to record public officials, framing it as a core First Amendment activity.

Why this matters now

The observers in the current lawsuits are exercising the exact right Glik established. The federal arguments that their recording constitutes obstruction or terrorism directly challenge that precedent.

Sources

(7)