The Department of Homeland Security is seeking access to neighborhood "rapid response" Signal group chats as it defends itself in a federal lawsuit accusing the agency of violating protesters' First Amendment rights, according to recent court filings reported by Wired. The case, Hilton v. Noem, was filed in federal court in Maine earlier this year by plaintiffs who allege DHS surveilled their activities while they observed immigration enforcement operations. Attorneys representing the protesters argue that the government's pursuit of these private communications is itself a First Amendment violation.
Maine residents began organizing together after immigration enforcement activity increased in their neighborhoods, including starting group chats on Signal to share when and where DHS operations were taking place, the filings show. As part of the lawsuit, the government was granted discovery and sought several categories of information from the named defendants. These requests included a list of all the protests each plaintiff attended, any communications—including comments or "likes"—reflecting the 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." Attorneys for the protesters turned over smaller Signal group chats to the court in June but said they were intentionally withholding all community group chats that would otherwise be considered responsive to the government's requests. The attorneys redacted contact information of people who weren't plaintiffs in the case, along with communications that revealed the priorities of a Signal community group chat or might reveal tactics or strategies used by participants.
During depositions, government attorneys tried asking plaintiffs numerous questions about the community Signal group chats, according to a letter from the protesters' attorneys to the Department of Justice. Some of the questions 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. Genevieve Nadeau, one of the attorneys representing the protesters and special counsel for Protect Democracy's Civil Society Defense, said "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." Adam Steinbaugh, a senior attorney at FIRE, a nonprofit civil liberties group, noted that "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."
The discovery demands illustrate a broader pattern of DHS targeting critics of the administration's immigration policies, the report notes. The government has attempted to unmask critics, including one Canadian, by subpoenaing tech companies to obtain their names and other identifying information. ICE's internal watchdog has investigated more than 100 instances of what it describes as "incidents of doxing and threats" against ICE employees. One plaintiff in the Maine case 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." The attorneys are asking the court to deny the government's access to the community group chats and shut down what they characterize as an attempt to intrude on the fundamental First Amendment right to engage in collective action.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how much information the government can demand about private organizing efforts when citizens sue over alleged constitutional violations. Nadeau and her co-counsel are seeking to establish that communities retain the right to coordinate responses to law enforcement activity without surrendering their privacy to the very agency they're challenging in court. DHS and the Department of Justice, which is litigating the case, did not respond to a request for comment. The tension between government surveillance powers and citizens' rights to organize opposition presents a strategic dilemma for agencies that must balance operational security with constitutional boundaries while navigating public accountability.