The Department of Homeland Security is seeking neighborhood “rapid response” Signal group chats as it defends itself in a lawsuit accusing it of violating protesters’ First Amendment rights, according to recent court filings. Attorneys for protesters in the case argue that the move itself is a First Amendment violation.
The case, Hilton v. Noem, was filed in federal court in Maine earlier this year. Plaintiffs in the case accuse DHS of violating their First Amendment rights by surveilling their activities. For example, one of the plaintiffs alleges that DHS agents scanned her face and collected her license plate information while she was observing Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity, telling her they were going to put her in a “nice little database.”
According to the filings, Maine residents began organizing together after immigration enforcement activity ramped up in their neighborhoods. This included starting group chats on Signal to share when and where DHS operations were taking place.
As part of the lawsuit, the government was granted discovery. According to a declaration from Genevieve Nadeau, one of the attorneys representing the protesters and special counsel and program lead for Protect Democracy’s Civil Society Defense, the government sought several things. These included a list of all the protests each of the named defendants attended, any communications—including comments or “likes”—reflecting the named plaintiffs’ “beliefs and opinions regarding law enforcement personnel, operations, tactics, and activity,” and any communications concerning “opportunities to observe and/or record ICE activity in Maine, from January 20, 2025, to the present.”
In June, attorneys for the protesters sent a letter to the Department of Justice, saying that they were intentionally withholding all community group Signal chats that would otherwise be considered responsive to the government’s requests.
The attorneys turned over smaller Signal group chats to the court but said in the letter that they had redacted the contact information of people who weren’t plaintiffs in the case, as well as communications that revealed the priorities of a Signal community group chat or might reveal any tactics or strategies used by one.
Attorneys for the government also deposed plaintiffs and tried asking them numerous questions about the community Signal group chats. According to the letter, some of the questions they asked included whether public officials or unnamed political groups were participating in the chats, whether people from outside of Maine were participants, and who the organizers of the chats were.
“The government wants access to private Signal chats that communities in Maine and around the country are using to coordinate lawful responses to dangerous abuses of power playing out on the streets where they live and work,” says Nadeau. “We’re asking the court to deny that access and shut down the government’s attempt to intrude on the fundamental First Amendment right to engage in collective action that is so critical to a healthy democracy.”
DHS and the Department of Justice, which is litigating the case, did not respond to a request for comment.
“You shouldn’t have to give up that First Amendment right to expressive association if you need to sue to protect your First Amendment rights,” says Adam Steinbaugh, a senior attorney at FIRE, a nonprofit civil liberties group.
DHS has been relentless in its pursuit of people who are critical of the administration’s immigration policies. The government has attempted to unmask critics, including one Canadian, by subpoenaing tech companies to obtain their names and other identifying information, and ICE’s internal watchdog has investigated more than 100 instances of what it says are “incidents of doxing and threats” against ICE employees.
