ACLU Comment on Wood v. Moss Ruling

MEMPHIS – Four Memphis residents filed suit in federal court to stop the Memphis Safe Task Force from retaliating against them for exercising their First Amendment right to film the Task Force’s immigration and law enforcement activity. The Task Force is comprised of numerous federal agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), and the U.S. Marshals, as well as the Tennessee Highway Patrol. "In the midst of the occupation in Memphis and the lack of transparency from this administration, it's important for people to bear witness to what's actually happening in our community,” said Hunter Demster, plaintiff. “The Memphis Safe Task Force is causing real harm to my friends and neighbors, and recording their abuses is one way to seek accountability and justice. The fact that I've been followed, threatened, and retaliated against for exercising my rights should concern everyone who cares about the First Amendment." Since September 2025, thousands of federal, state, and local agents have flooded the streets of Memphis as part of the Memphis Safe Task Force, a 31-agency Task Force that has aggressively patrolled the city at the invitation of Governor Bill Lee. Agents and officers working with the Memphis Safe Task Force have terrorized local communities, conducting mass traffic stops and large-scale immigration arrests. With Task Force abuses upending daily life in Memphis — a city already rocked by historic and pervasive law enforcement violence — ordinary Memphians have taken to the streets to observe and record their activities. While observing and recording Task Force activities, civilians have reported a disturbing and pervasive pattern of retaliation. Allegations include: Task Force agents tackling an observer seeking to record Task Force activity, pinning her down and arresting and jailing her for 27 hours. Task Force agents swerving at or boxing in observers with their vehicles. Task Force agents consistently photographing observers’ faces, vehicles, and license plates. Observers noticing unmarked vehicles with tinted windows and individuals in tactical vests outside their homes after observing the Task Force. Task Force agents repeatedly identifying and taunting observers by name, when observers have never met them before, making observers “feel hypervigilant.” Task Force agents shining bright lights at observers’ faces, phones, and cameras to obscure photography and filming of Task Force activity. Observers being tailed, stopped, and subjected to questioning without reasonable suspicion of a crime after observing Task Force activity. “Recording publicly visible law enforcement activity is a core First Amendment right,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Like folks in Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles, and elsewhere across the country, Memphis residents have picked up their phones and cameras to document the massive influx of law enforcement officers into their community. “In response, the Memphis Safe Task Force has relentlessly subjected these individuals to intimidation, harassment, and retaliation. We are going to court to seek relief against this egregious suppression of First Amendment protected activity.” The right to record law enforcement officers performing their duties in public has been widely recognized and upheld by the courts. Such video recordings have proven critical to accomplishing the First Amendment’s core purposes: the free discussion of government affairs, the exposure of government misconduct, and democratic pushes for government accountability and policy change. "Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant for a government that abuses its power in darkness," said Zee Scout (she/her), staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee. "Our clients have bravely shined a light on the daily abuses the Memphis Safe Task Force perpetuates against Memphians when it thinks no one is watching, and they have often experienced harm in response. But the Constitution forbids this sort of retaliation. Memphis has a long history of peaceful resistance in response to systemic government violence, and it will not be cowed by this latest attempt." The complaint also seeks to challenge the Task Force’s unlawful application of the state’s “Halo Law," which criminalizes approaching law enforcement within twenty-five feet after one warning. Task Force agents have repeatedly used the law to prevent non-obstructive observers, including our plaintiffs, from gathering information and recording their operations. “Courts have repeatedly upheld the right to record law enforcement in public spaces, because our government is ultimately accountable to the people,” said Faith E. Gay of Selendy Gay PLLC. “Exercising First Amendment rights should not result in arrests, intimidation, or surveillance, and yet that is exactly what is happening to people in Memphis. The pattern of unconstitutional retaliation is severe and chilling, and our brave clients are standing up to these unlawful intimidation tactics to defend their neighbors and the First Amendment.” “The right to record our government is critical to a functioning democracy and public debate,” said Matthew Borden of BraunHagey & Borden LLP. “The footage of the killings of George Floyd, Renee Good, and Alex Pretti prove that civilians’ ability to document abuses and speak truth to power using their camera phones can act as a fundamental check on government power. This suit seeks to stop the government from monopolizing the marketplace of ideas through armed intimidation and a ‘Halo Law’ that prevents people from exercising their right to record.” The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the ACLU Foundation of Tennessee, Selendy Gay PLLC, and BraunHagey & Borden LLP in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The named defendants include Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the heads of DHS, ICE, CBP, the U.S. Marshals, and the Tennessee Highway Patrol.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Supreme Court decided in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport that nonprofits can seek immediate federal court review of state investigatory subpoenas that they claim chill their First Amendment rights. The decision cites an August amicus brief authored by the Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression (FIRE) and joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey that argues in support of groups’ right to seek federal relief. “We’re grateful that the Court has recognized that even before they’re enforced, law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information can scare away the supporters that are essential to any nonprofit’s work,” said Brian Hauss, deputy project director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “At a time when government officials throughout the country abuse regulatory powers to punish their ideological opponents, federal courts must remain a venue in which people can vindicate their First Amendment rights.” In 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Platkin issued subpoenas under the state’s consumer protections laws to First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a nonprofit that runs anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. The subpoenas sought wide-ranging information about the nonprofit, including the identity of its donors. First Choice challenged the subpoenas in federal court, arguing that the information sought chilled its First Amendments rights to speech and association. The Third Circuit dismissed First Choice’s claims, saying it could not assert its First Amendment rights in federal court until the state enforced the subpoena in state court. “Thankfully, the Court ruled that federal courts remain open for nonprofits to challenge government subpoenas that could be used to target them based on their viewpoint,” said Jeanne LoCicero, legal director of the ACLU of New Jersey. “It is crucial for advocacy organizations – wherever they fall on the political spectrum - to have a legal path to fight retaliatory conduct by government officials.” The FIRE/ACLU brief argued that state law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information threaten to chill protected speech and association even before they are enforced in state court. To ensure that these investigatory tools are not abused to retaliate against the ideological opponents of those in office, federal courts must be available to promptly review claims that law enforcement subpoenas violate the First Amendment. The amicus brief was filed in August. It can be read here. This matter is a part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.

BOSTON – Rümeysa Öztürk has returned to her home in Türkiye following the successful completion of her PhD program in child study and human development, with a focus on young people’s positive behaviors on social media, in February. A little over one year after ICE unlawfully detained Dr. Öztürk in retaliation for co-authoring an op-ed in The Tufts Daily, the parties reached a settlement to resolve outstanding legal issues in federal court and to jointly move to dismiss her immigration proceedings. “After 13 years of dedicated study, I am very proud to have completed my Ph.D. and to return home on my own timeline,” said Dr. Rümeysa Öztürk. “The time stolen from me by the U.S. government belongs not just to me, but to the children and youth I have dedicated my life to advocating for. With them in mind, I am choosing to return home as planned to continue my career as a woman scholar without losing more time to the state-imposed violence and hostility I have experienced in the United States – all for nothing more than co-signing an op-ed advocating for Palestinian rights. “As I start the next chapter of my life, I stand firmly in solidarity with academic communities in the U.S. and elsewhere who live in fear for nothing more than their scholarship, and with other scholars punished for their courageous advocacy for Palestine,” Dr. Öztürk continued. “I invite all universities to do better about listening and valuing all of their students as equal community members, rather than favoring some and silencing others. And I invite everyone to recognize the privilege it is for any country to host international scholars, and the hole that is left in our society when that privilege is lost." An immigration judge terminated the removal proceedings against Dr. Öztürk earlier this year, finding that the government had no basis to deport her. The government appealed that decision soon after to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). This week, under the terms of the settlement agreement, the government and Dr. Öztürk jointly requested termination of proceedings in front of the BIA. "Rümeysa’s professional and academic accomplishments are impressive, impactful and inspiring, and her positive contributions to the field of child development will only continue to grow as she starts this next chapter,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The government’s arrest and detention of Rümeysa was unlawful and harmful, as numerous federal court decisions have confirmed that the government had no basis for its actions aside from her constitutionally protected speech. Yet even as the government continued a relentless campaign against Rümeysa for nothing more than co-authoring an op-ed, she continued to navigate her studies and her advocacy with strength and grace, and she succeeded in her goal of obtaining her Ph.D. to work towards bettering the lives of children.” In January, documents revealed as part of the AAUP v. Rubio trial made clear that the government targeted Dr. Öztürk for detention solely for her constitutionally protected speech. Internal government documents show that the government knew that they found no grounds to detain her, or seek to deport her, other than her co-authoring an op-ed in a student newspaper. “Rümeysa should never have been detained for expressing her opinions in a country that is supposed to protect freedom of speech,” said Esha Bhandari, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The government’s retaliatory actions violated the Constitution, and having recourse to federal court was essential to secure her release and enable her to complete her Ph.D. We are grateful that she could make decisions about her future on her own terms.” Under the settlement agreement, Dr. Öztürk was free to return to Türkiye without further interference by the Department of Homeland Security. The government also expressly acknowledged that her SEVIS status has been reinstated and that she was in lawful status at all times that she was in the United States. “We are incredibly fortunate to have scholars like Rümeysa dedicate years of their life studying in this country, making our communities more vibrant and sharing their knowledge on our campuses” said Monica Allard, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Vermont. “Despite the Trump administration’s best efforts to baselessly attack her character and thwart her career, she successfully completed her studies earlier this year and has now returned home to Turkey. Dr. Öztürk will undoubtedly continue making a difference in the lives of children across the globe through her scholarship in child development and her advocacy for human rights.” Dr. Öztürk’s SEVIS case and habeas case will be dismissed as part of the settlement. A federal court in the District of Massachusetts had granted her a preliminary injunction in her SEVIS case, which the federal government had indicated it would appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Her habeas case was last argued in front of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where a decision was pending. “Despite the administration’s best efforts to punish her for co-authoring an op-ed, Rümeysa successfully completed her Ph.D. program,” said Naz Ahmad, Acting Director of CLEAR. “No student or academic should be deprived of the opportunity to study or pursue research simply because the administration disagrees with their political views, as they attempted to do with Rümeysa. As she embarks on the next stage of her career, we’re excited to see what Rümeysa chooses to do.” Dr. Öztürk is represented in her federal court proceedings by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Abady Brinckerhoff Ward & Maazel LLP. For images from her graduation, please email media@aclu.org. For case materials, please see here.