Tag: 1st amendment

ICE Tells Legal Observer, ‘We Have a Nice Little Database, and Now You’re Considered a Domestic Terrorist’

Video taken this morning in Maine shows an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer taking pictures of a legal observer’s car. When she asks why he’s doing that, he says, “Because we have a nice little database, and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.”

The video is the latest example of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) labeling anyone who engages in First Amendment–protected activity opposing the Trump administration’s mass deportation program as a “domestic terrorist” and suggesting they’ll be subject to federal investigations.

The DHS did not immediately respond to request for comment on the scope of the database mentioned by the officer or whether it considers protected First Amendment activity to be conduct that warrants inclusion on the database.

Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported today that an unnamed federal law enforcement official told him that DHS “has ordered immigration officers to gather identifying information about anyone filming them.”

In September, President Donald Trump issued a memo ordering federal law enforcement to focus on ideologies that are allegedly fueling “domestic terrorism.” These include “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender,” as well as opposition to “foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control).”

As Reason‘s Joe Lancaster wrote at the time, the memo was “an assault on the First Amendment” that listed protected free speech “as evidence of criminality that requires federal intervention.”

And since the Trump administration’s deportation campaign began last year, DHS officials have repeatedly insisted that following and recording federal immigration agents in public is a violation of a federal statute that makes it a crime to assault or impede law enforcement officers.

There have been dozens of recorded instances of ICE and Border Patrol officers harassing, assaulting, and detaining people for filming and following them, even though there is a well-established First Amendment right to record and observe the police.

For example, today Slate published the first-person account of Brandon Sigüenza, a Minneapolis man who was volunteering with a local group that monitors and records ICE activity. Federal immigration officers surrounded his car, smashed out his windows, roughly arrested him, and detained him for hours.

Sigüenza also submitted a sworn declaration describing his experiences in a civil rights lawsuit challenging the DHS’ actions in Minneapolis.

Keep reading

Miami Beach police chief defends detectives’ visit to activist over Facebook post about mayor

Miami Beach Police Chief Wayne Jones issued a statement Friday explaining why detectives visited the home of a local political activist earlier this week following a social media comment about Mayor Steven Meiner.

“Given the real, ongoing national and international concerns surrounding antisemitic attacks and recent rhetoric that has led to violence against political figures,” Jones wrote that he “directed two of his detectives to initiate a brief, voluntary conversation regarding certain inflammatory, potentially inciteful false remarks made by a resident to ensure there was no immediate threat to the elected official or the broader community that might emerge as a result of the post.”

He went on to write that “the interaction was handled professionally and at no time did the mayor or any other official direct me to take action.”

The statement comes after Raquel Pacheco, a Miami Beach political activist and veteran who previously ran for city commission and a Democratic state Senate candidate, said Miami Beach detectives arrived at her home.

“He said, ‘We are here to talk to you about a Facebook comment’ and I said – ‘What? Is this really happening?” Pacheco told Local 10 News.

Pacheco had commented on a Facebook post by Meiner, who is Jewish, in which he described Miami Beach as “a safe haven for everyone,” contrasting it with New York City, which he said was “intentionally removing protections” for and “promoting boycotts” of Israeli and Jewish businesses.

Pacheco responded to the post by writing, “The guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians, tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings, and REFUSES to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way (even leaves the room when they vote on related matters) wants you to know that you’re all welcome here,” followed by three clown emojis.

She recorded the brief exchange with the detective who spoke with her about the post. In the video, Pacheco is heard asking, “Am I being charged with a crime?” and “So you are here to investigate a statement I allegedly made on Facebook?”

She later added, “This is freedom of speech. This is America, right?”

Pacheco said she believes the visit was politically motivated rather than a matter of public safety.

In the video, the detective is heard saying, “What we are just trying to prevent is somebody else getting agitated or agreeing with the statement, we are not saying if it’s true or not.”

“So that, to me, is a clear indication that people are not allowed to agree with anyone but the mayor and that is not how America works,” Pacheco said. “I don’t agree with him and I am going to continue to voice that.”

The encounter comes amid a national conversation about censorship and free speech, including recent debates sparked by the brief suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”

While the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, it does protect Americans from government interference in speech.

In the video, the detective advised Pacheco to “refrain from posting things like that,” telling her that her comment about Meiner’s views on Palestinians “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.”

Pacheco, who said she was simply “calling out” what she described as Meiner’s “hypocrisy,” said her comments do not meet that standard.

Keep reading

Video Shows Border Patrol Threaten Legal Observer in Key Largo for Following Him

A U.S. Border Patrol officer threatened to arrest a legal observer in Key Largo, Florida, today for following the officer, video of the encounter posted on Instagram shows.

The video is another instance of federal immigration officers threatening and harassing legal observers for conduct that civil liberties groups and multiple federal circuit courts say is firmly protected First Amendment activity.

The observer and activist, a 64-year-old Key Largo man who requested that his name not be printed to avoid retaliation, tells Reason he is part of a local group that tracks federal immigration enforcement activity in the Upper Florida Keys. Key Largo was the scene of a Border Patrol stop in December that generated national headlines after officers dragged a U.S. citizen out of her car.

The observer says he was following an unmarked Customs and Border Protection (CBP) vehicle from a safe distance when the car turned into a restaurant parking lot. The observer says he parked well over 25 feet away from the CBP vehicle, at which point the Border Patrol officer got out of his car, put on a mask, and approached the observer’s car. 

Keep reading

Jack Smith Deposition Shows His Get-Trump Lawfare Was Also A War On Free Speech

In the last few months, we have gained valuable insights into former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s unprecedented effort to criminally prosecute President Donald Trump, at the time a former president and leading contender for the presidency.

In Injustice, Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis, appearing to rely heavily on accounts from Smith’s top deputies, paint a picture of a prosecutor doggedly focused on one objective: prosecuting Trump. On New Year’s Eve, however, the House Judiciary Committee released the transcript of Smith’s closed-door deposition. While a prosecutor’s crusade to imprison a presidential candidate is troubling in itself, Smith’s deposition testimony was alarming, as it betrayed Smith’s utter disdain for the fundamental right to freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment. 

Smith’s so-called “election interference” case in Washington, D.C., has long raised a fundamental question: What was the crime? In his deposition, Smith claimed Trump’s statements that the 2020 election was “rife with fraud” were “absolutely not” protected by the First Amendment and, indeed, formed the basis for his prosecution. Smith went on to claim that Trump would reject information that Smith believed he should have credited and reached out to individuals whom Smith deemed uncredible. 

Whether you are the president of the United States or an anonymous poster on X, the First Amendment protects your right to speak about elections. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech is a critical check on the power of the government, as it prevents the government from punishing those who speak out against it. Punishing speech regarding an election is especially insidious: American history is replete with instances in which litigation has changed the results of elections, and election fraud has been proven.

For example, in Hawaii, a court-ordered recount changed the outcome of the presidential contest in that state. And it was only because President John F. Kennedy sent a slate of alternate electors to Washington that Kennedy’s victory in Hawaii was counted. Criminalizing the questioning of elections is an invitation for election fraud and, regardless, tramples on the right we all enjoy to criticize our government. 

Smith’s disdain for the First Amendment did not end with his attempt to prosecute Trump for speaking about the 2020 election. Speaking about the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, Smith stated unequivocally that Trump “caused it.” The Department of Justice (before and after Smith’s appointment as special counsel) and the Jan. 6 Committee each spent years (and millions of dollars of taxpayer money) investigating the Capitol demonstration, and neither uncovered a shred of evidence that Trump had any role in planning the riot. Indeed, Smith never sought an indictment against Trump for inciting a riot, which would have been the obvious charge if Smith had uncovered such evidence. Yet Smith tried to justify his extraordinary claim that Trump caused the riot by saying Trump’s statements about the 2020 election “created a certain level of distrust.”

If an American — president or otherwise — could be criminally responsible for what others do in response to political speech, the possibilities for prosecution would be limitless. In the lead-up to the 2024 election, Trump survived two assassination attempts. The would-be assassins were surely radicalized by someone, likely media figures or other politicians who spent years falsely deriding Trump as a dictator or puppet of Vladimir Putin.

Politicians’ reckless rhetoric in the wake of George Floyd’s death led to massive riots in multiple American cities, causing the destruction of many small businesses. But the notion of a special counsel seeking an indictment of an MSNBC personality for the Trump assassination attempts or a Democrat member of Congress for the Black Lives Matter riots is downright farcical (as it should be).

Keep reading

The First Amendment Allows You to Report Things the Government Doesn’t Want Reported

The House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed journalist Seth Harp (Washington Post, 1/8/26) over his posting on X a photo and publicly available biographical information about the US colonel who apparently leads the Army’s Delta Force unit, which played a key role in the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Committee member Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R–Fla.) called for Harp’s criminal prosecution, accusing him of “leaking classified information” and “doxing” the colonel. In a statement to the Washington Post, she said:

The First Amendment does not give anyone a license to expose elite military personnel, compromise operations or assist our adversaries under the guise of reporting.

Actually, the First Amendment does give you a license to do all of those things. None of them are covered by the extremely limited exceptions to the freedom of the press recognized by the US Constitution.

And allowing these is not the unfortunate consequence of unbridled free expression; these are liberties that are core to maintaining a semblance of democracy. Do you want to be ruled by secret military commanders? Do you want it to be illegal to report on your country’s use of military force? Do you want to live in a country where journalists are in prison for “assisting our adversaries”?

Unfortunately, though, the House Oversight Committee apparently does want all of those things.

Keep reading

Mary Moriarty threatens prosecutions over ‘hateful’ messages to Somali community

Amid national attention on fraud in Minnesota, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty has warned that people who send “hateful” messages to the Somali community could face prosecution.

Meanwhile, it was recently revealed that a Somali national who pleaded guilty in two separate sexual assault cases avoided prison under a plea deal negotiated by Moriarty’s office.

Last year, Abdimahat Mohamed received a three-year prison sentence that was stayed and served no time in prison after pleading guilty in two separate sexual assault cases — one involving the rape of a 15-year-old girl in 2017 and another involving an adult woman in 2024.

In both cases, the most serious criminal sexual conduct charges were dropped. Moriarty’s office defended the plea deal after national attention followed, saying it had lost key witnesses and that the case was “substantially weakened.”

According to a later FBI affidavit tied to federal kidnapping charges, Moriarty’s office also agreed not to charge Mohamed for a third sexual assault from 2018 as part of the plea agreement.

Now, Moriarty has issued a public statement warning that her office is receiving “a large number of reports” of members of the Somali community being sent “hateful, threatening, and disturbing messages.”

The statement blamed “far-right propagandists” for “demonizing an entire group of people” and urged the public to report such messages to law enforcement so cases could be reviewed for prosecution.

Moriarty’s statement included contact information for advocacy organizations and pledged the office would “do everything in our power to keep each other safe.”

Keep reading

Jack Smith Says Trump Did NOT Have First Amendment Right to Say 2020 Election Was Fraudulent in Newly-Released Deposition

House Judiciary Republicans on Wednesday released a transcript and video of Jack Smith’s closed-door testimony to Congress.

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith appeared on Capitol Hill last month for a closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

Republican lawmakers called Jack Smith to testify over his “partisan and politically motivated” Trump prosecutions.

Jack Smith was appointed as Special Counsel in 2022 by Joe Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump just one day after Trump announced his 2024 bid for the White House.

In June 2023, Jack Smith indicted Trump on 37 federal counts in Miami for lawfully storing presidential records at his Mar-a-Lago estate, which was protected by Secret Service agents.

In a separate case in Washington DC, Jack Smith indicted Trump on four counts: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Jack Smith defended his inquisition in an opening statement to congressional investigators.

“The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions, as alleged in the indictments returned by grand juries in two different districts,” Jack Smith said.

During his deposition, Jack Smith said his prosecutors framed the case against Trump as a fraud case rather than a First Amendment issue.

“Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment, so in my mind it was important to make that clear in the indictment…” Jack Smith said as he boasted about the case ‘prevailing’ in the district court with corrupt Obama-appointed Judge Chutkan.

Two of Jack Smith’s charges against President Trump in the DC case were ultimately torpedoed by the US Supreme Court after it issued a ruling on the obstruction statute – 1512(c)(2).

Keep reading

Texas Meme Case Crumbles as Satire Beats the State

A felony case tied to a satirical political meme has fallen apart in North Texas, with prosecutors formally declining to pursue charges against Granbury journalist and Navy veteran Kolton Glen Krottinger.

His attorney says the arrest and prosecution are now the basis for an upcoming federal civil rights lawsuit.

On December 22, 2025, Ellis County District Attorney Lindy T. Beaty, acting as a special prosecutor after the Hood County district attorney recused himself, issued a written rejection of the online impersonation charge that led to Krottinger’s arrest last fall.

We obtained a copy of the rejection for you here.

After reviewing the evidence, Beaty concluded the case could not proceed and directed that the charge be dismissed, Krottinger released, and all bond conditions terminated.

The charge arose from a Facebook post shared during a contentious Granbury Independent School District board election.

Krottinger runs a local political commentary page called “Hood County Sheepdogs,” which publishes interviews, criticism of local officials, and political satire.

The page clearly identifies its content as satirical.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Blocks Texas App Store Digital ID Age Verification Law, Citing First Amendment Violations

A new Texas statute aimed at inserting the state into routine decisions about app downloads has been stopped at the courthouse door, at least for now.

A federal judge ruled days before the law’s scheduled launch that its design collides with the First Amendment and cannot be enforced while the case moves forward.

Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking Senate Bill 2420, the Texas App Store Accountability Act, which was set to take effect on January 1.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

The law would have required app stores to verify every user’s age (which would mean digital ID checks or biometric scans) and forced minors to obtain parental approval before downloading apps or buying in-app content.

In a detailed written ruling, Pitman concluded the statute is both constitutionally defective and structurally unworkable.

“The Act is akin to a law that would require every bookstore to verify the age of every customer at the door and, for minors, require parental consent before the child or teen could enter and again when they try to purchase a book,” he wrote.

He added that “when considered on the merits, SB 2420 violates the First Amendment.”

SB 2420 does not target a narrow category of online services. It applies to nearly every app store and app developer operating in Texas, bringing in news outlets, streaming platforms, educational tools, fitness apps, and digital libraries alongside social media and games.

Under the statute, developers must assign state-defined age ratings, explain the reasoning behind each rating, and report significant changes to content or features.

Keep reading

DHS Says Recording or Following Law Enforcement ‘Sure Sounds Like Obstruction of Justice’

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says recording or following federal law enforcement “sure sounds like obstruction of justice,” despite federal circuit courts repeatedly ruling that such activity is core First Amendment speech.

In response to a question from Reason asking if the department considered following or recording a federal law enforcement officer to be obstruction of justice, the DHS Office of Public Affairs said in an emailed statement attributed to an unnamed spokesperson: “That sure sounds like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a more than 1150% increase in assaults against them. If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

It’s one of the most direct public statements yet from DHS articulating a policy that treats following, recording, and revealing the identities of federal immigration officers as illegal activity. There have been months of news reports and viral showing federal immigration officers threatening, brandishing weapons, and violently detaining people for following and recording them in public. 

David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, collected dozens of these instances in a report released earlier this month. Bier concluded that the amount of video evidence, in conjunction memos and public statements from DHS leadership, amounts to “an official, nationwide policy of intimidating and threatening people who attempt to observe and record [DHS] operations.”

Civil libertarians say it’s an unconstitutional policy. Although the Supreme Court has declined to address the issue, seven federal circuit courts have firmly upheld the right to record and monitor the police, as long as one doesn’t physically interfere with them. 

“Observing, following, and recording law enforcement are unambiguously protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution,” Bier tells Reason. “They are not obstruction of justice. The right to record helps guarantee justice by ensuring accountability and an accurate record of events.”

For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded in 2017 that “First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit joined the club in 2022, when it ruled that a Colorado man had presented a clear First Amendment retaliation claim against a police officer who prevented him from filming a traffic stop.

Likewise, courts have frequently ruled that the First Amendment protects the right to warn others of police activity, such as flashing one’s headlights to warn of a speed trap ahead. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that a Connecticut man’s First Amendment rights were violated when police arrested him for holding a sign warning drivers of police activity ahead.

“The right to record publicly visible law enforcement activity is a core First Amendment right,” says Scarlet Kim, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “It creates an independent record of what officers are doing, and it is no accident that some of the most high-profile cases of misconduct have involved video recordings. The burning question is why ICE officers feel the need to hide who they are and what they do from the public—masking their faces, lacking visible ID, driving unmarked vehicles, and now attacking those who document their activities.”

The guiding First Amendment principle behind these court decisions was most memorably expressed in the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Houston v. Hill, which struck down a Houston ordinance that made it unlawful to oppose or interrupt a police officer: “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state,” Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote.

Keep reading