Advocates sue Trump administration over secret dossiers compiled on ‘ICE watchers’

A coalition of privacy and civil liberties advocates has asked a federal court to halt what they describe as a secret government effort to compile records on people who watch and film immigration agents at work. The complaint, brought by three legal observers and a national privacy group, argues that the tracking violates a 1974 law written to curb domestic spying.

According to Truthout, the suit was filed on Friday by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and legal observers Nicole Cleland, Jacquelyn Ivey and Anna Walker. Bloomberg Law reported that the case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Court records show the plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward and the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The complaint alleges that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies built and kept databases of people who observed, documented or protested immigration enforcement without the notice and safeguards required by the Privacy Act of 1974. Democracy Forward says that law prohibits the federal government from maintaining records describing how individuals exercise their First Amendment rights except in limited circumstances. The plaintiffs also challenge the policy as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

According to Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs contend that DHS deployed facial recognition technology, body cameras, license plate readers, mobile devices and other tools to identify people who legally observe enforcement in public. According to the filing, the agency stored those records in its own systems, including the Automated Targeting System, whose records can be shared with other law enforcement agencies. The complaint alleges the information was then used to revoke plaintiffs’ Global Entry privileges, part of the Trusted Traveler programs that also include TSA PreCheck.

According to Truthout, the suit refers to what it calls a “Protester Surveillance Policy.” It quotes a memo it says instructed agents to “capture all images, license plates, identifications, and general information on hotels, agitators, protestors, etc., so we can capture it all in one consolidated form.” The complaint also alleges that in Maine, agents told observers they were being added to a database of “domestic terrorists,” and that in Minneapolis observers were followed home, a practice it says became known as “being driven home by ICE.”

Each of the three observers lost her Global Entry status after encounters with federal agents, according to HuffPost, which first detailed their cases. Cleland said an agent in Minnesota approached her in January, addressed her by name and said he was using facial recognition technology before telling her to stop following agents; she lost her Global Entry three days later. Ivey, who goes by Michelle Shara, said she was accused of trespassing but not arrested after filming agents outside a Customs and Border Protection facility in North Carolina, then lost her membership. Walker said she was boxed in by agents in a San Diego parking lot; her status was reinstated shortly after HuffPost asked DHS about it.

The Trump administration has denied that lawful protest costs travelers their status. A Customs and Border Protection spokesperson told HuffPost that memberships “are not revoked because someone exercises their First Amendment rights,” and said they may be denied or revoked for reasons such as criminal activity or immigration violations.

Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement that “the federal government cannot build secret dossiers on people because they exercise their First Amendment right to peacefully observe, document, or criticize its actions.” EPIC Deputy Director John Davisson said the practice “sends a chilling message: if you speak up, watch your back.”

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the surveillance policy unlawful, vacate it and bar DHS from continuing to collect and keep records of individuals’ protected First Amendment activities. As Bloomberg Law noted, the case was filed on Friday.