Anti-Prostitution Pledge Puts Free Speech at Risk

NEW YORK – In a win for freedom of the press, the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of San Diego, and Covington & Burling LLP announced a settlement today in a federal lawsuit challenging the unlawful targeting and questioning of five photojournalists at the U.S.-Mexico border. The lawsuit, filed in November 2019 in federal court in the Eastern District of New York against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), claimed that border officials violated the journalists’ First Amendment rights. The journalists claimed that they were unconstitutionally targeted for secondary inspection, detention, and questioning by U.S. border officials on the basis of their reporting near the U.S.-Mexico border in 2018 and 2019. In March 2021, the district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case, holding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that border officials violated their First Amendment rights. The case was settled in January 2026. “The future of our democracy depends on the freedom of the press, now more than ever,” said plaintiff Bing Guan. “It’s clear the government’s actions were meant to instill fear in journalists like me, to cow us into standing down from reporting what is happening on the ground. After being targeted for doing just that, I am grateful for what our lawsuit has achieved in defending the rights of journalists to report free from government officials’ scrutiny.” “This settlement confirms what we already knew: what happened to us was wrong,” said plaintiff Kitra Cahana. “Government officials should never put journalists on secret lists, interfere with our ability to work and travel, or pressure us for information at border crossings. My biggest fear is that other journalists may have avoided important stories out of fear of being targeted themselves. Press freedom is not a partisan issue. Everyone should be alarmed when journalists are targeted.” The plaintiffs, journalists Bing Guan, Go Nakamura, Mark Abramson, Kitra Cahana, and Ariana Drehsler, are all U.S. citizen professional photojournalists who — between November 2018 and January 2019 — traveled to Mexico to document people traveling north from Central America by caravan to reach the U.S.-Mexico border. Following their reporting on conditions at the border, these five photojournalists were detained and interrogated by U.S. border officers, who sought information about their sources and observations as journalists. Shortly after, government database information leaked to NBC San Diego in March 2019 revealed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had engaged in wide-ranging intelligence collection targeting activists, lawyers, and journalists — including these five journalists. “The First Amendment applies at the border to protect freedom of the press,” said Esha Bhandari, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are thankful to have secured redress for these journalists, to allow them to do their jobs reporting on the news free from unjustified government scrutiny.” As part of the settlement, CBP must issue guidance to certain CBP units regarding the First Amendment and Privacy Act protections that apply when questioning journalists at the border. CBP must also take certain steps to ensure that the journalists’ past reporting at the U.S.-Mexico border should not serve as a basis for future border questioning. The settlement also includes an amount for costs and attorneys’ fees.

SAN FRANCISCO – In a win for free speech and privacy rights, the Department of Homeland Security withdrew an administrative subpoena it had sent to Google seeking personal information about Jon Doe, a Philadelphia-area man who sent an email to a DHS official asking them to “apply principles of common sense and decency” in the government’s treatment of a man seeking asylum from Afghanistan. Doe sent the email after reading about the case in the Washington Post. Just four hours after Doe sent the email, DHS issued an administrative subpoena to Google seeking a variety of information about Doe and his Gmail account. About two weeks after he was notified about the subpoena, two DHS agents and a local police officer showed up to his home to interrogate him about the email. Doe challenged the subpoena, arguing that it violated his First Amendment rights and was issued in violation of federal law. “Questioning the government without fear of retaliation is a sign of a healthy democracy,” said Jon Doe. “Agents requesting information from your email provider and showing up to your door after you express your opinion is not. I am grateful that I am no longer under investigation, and I am glad to have shined a light on this abusive tactic before they target someone else.” Administrative subpoenas like the one sent to Google about Doe are not self-enforcing and not signed by a judge. They are often issued silently, without the person they target knowing about them unless notified by the recipient, such as an Internet company, school, or employer. DHS has used them previously to try to unmask anonymous social media users who posted about ICE raids and to pressure Columbia University into sharing information about a student who had participated in pro-Palestinian protests. After the ACLU of Northern California and ACLU of Pennsylvania filed motions challenging some of these subpoenas targeting Instagram and Facebook users, DHS withdrew the subpoenas. “This is a resounding win for our First Amendment rights," Stephen A. Loney, ACLU-PA senior supervising attorney. "Administrative subpoenas like this one are abusive tactics intended to chill speech and punish us for disagreeing with the government. By standing up to their bullying tactics, we’re sending a message too: you can stand up for your rights, and you can win.” The motion to quash the subpoena was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “Companies like Google know a lot about us, and we shouldn’t have to worry that the government is going to strongarm them for our information if we say something it doesn’t like,” said Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Administrative subpoenas like this one are insidious -- we challenge this abusive tactic whenever we can because it is our First Amendment rights on the line.” The notice of dismissal can be viewed here.

NEW YORK – Attorneys for Rümeysa Öztürk submitted documents in federal court today announcing that removal proceedings against the Tufts University Ph.D. student have been terminated by an immigration judge. “Today, I breathe a sigh of relief knowing that despite the justice system’s flaws, my case may give hope to those who have also been wronged by the U.S. government" said Rümeysa Öztürk. "Though the pain that I and thousands of other women wrongfully imprisoned by ICE have faced cannot be undone, it is heartening to know that some justice can prevail after all. I grieve for the many human beings who do not get to see the mistreatment they have faced brought into the light. When we openly talk about the many injustices around us, including the treatment of immigrants and others who have been targeted and thrown in for-profit ICE prisons, as well as what is happening in Gaza, true justice will prevail.” On March 25, 2025, Ms. Öztürk was detained by plainclothes ICE agents in Somerville, Massachusetts in retaliation for an op-ed she co-authored in the Tufts Daily. Her legal team filed a petition and complaint with the federal court in the District of Massachusetts challenging her unconstitutional detention by ICE and arguing that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments. Without informing the court or her counsel, ICE had shuttled her across state lines to Vermont—where she was at the time of her habeas petition being filed, resulting in the case ultimately being transferred to the District of Vermont—and eventually to a detention facility in Louisiana. On May 9, six weeks after her arrest, a Vermont district court judge ordered Ms. Öztürk’s release from detention on bail on May 9. The government appealed the District Court’s transfer order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were heard by a three-judge panel on September 30, 2025, and a decision is still pending. “The Trump administration has weaponized our immigration system to target valued members of our communities, including scholars like Rümeysa,” said Mahsa Khanbabai of Khanbabai Immigration Law. “It has manipulated immigration laws to silence people who advocate for Palestinian human rights and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Secretly revoking the visa of someone who has maintained their lawful immigration status as an excuse to detain them and place them into deportation proceedings, on the basis of free speech, is Kafkaesque. With this ruling, Judge Patel has delivered justice for Rümeysa; now, I hope that other immigration judges will follow her lead and decline to rubber stamp the president’s cruel deportation agenda.” “This decision underscores the importance of allowing federal courts to review challenges to immigration detention” said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “Without federal court jurisdiction, the government could punitively and unlawfully detain any noncitizen for months based solely on their speech so long as it simultaneously began removal proceedings, even where, as here, an Immigration Judge ultimately agrees that there is no lawful basis for removal. It is for this reason that habeas proceedings have been and remain a fundamental bulwark against the unconstitutional loss of liberty." On December 5, 2025 a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that Ms. Öztürk’s Student and Exchange Visitor Information System record was wrongfully terminated and must be reinstated, allowing her to fully participate in her educational and training program once more. While the government filed a notice of appeal of this decision on February 6, 2026, her SEVIS record remains reinstated. On January 22, 2026, another federal judge in Massachusetts determined in AAUP v. Rubio that the government’s policy of arresting and detaining scholars like Ms. Öztürk violated the First Amendment, and documents released as part of the case confirmed that the government targeted her solely on the basis of the op-ed. Ms. Öztürk is represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Vermont, CLEAR, Emery Celli Abady Brinckerhoff Ward & Maazel LLP, Mahsa Khanbabai, and Kerry Doyle. A copy of the 28J letter filed in federal court is available here.

SAN FRANCISCO – A Philadelphia-area man, identified in court filings as Jon Doe, is challenging an administrative subpoena issued to Google seeking information about his identity and home address after he sent an email to a Department of Homeland Security official criticizing their treatment of a man seeking asylum from Afghanistan. After reading an article in the Washington Post detailing misleading arguments made by the DHS attorney attempting to deport the asylum-seeker to Afghanistan, Doe sent a short email to the attorney at his publicly available DHS email address. The email urged DHS to “apply principles of common sense and decency” in its treatment of the asylum seeker. Just four hours after Doe sent the email, DHS issued an administrative subpoena to Google seeking a variety of information about Doe and his Gmail account. Google alerted Doe to the subpoena and has not yet fulfilled it. About two weeks after he was notified about the subpoena, two DHS agents and a local police officer showed up to his home to interrogate him about the email. “As a longtime advocate for the rights and dignity of refugees and asylum seekers, the story I read in the Washington Post saddened and alarmed me," said Jon Doe. "In a democracy, contacting your government about things you feel strongly about is a fundamental right. I exercised that right to urge my government to take this man's life seriously. For that, I am being investigated, intimidated, and targeted. I hope that by standing up for my rights and sharing my story, others will know what to do when these abusive subpoenas and investigations come knocking on their door." Yesterday, Doe filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that it violates both federal law and the First Amendment because it impermissibly targets him for his constitutionally protected speech. “These types of abusive subpoenas are designed to intimidate and sow fear of government retaliation," Stephen A. Loney, ACLU-PA senior supervising attorney. "If you can’t criticize a government official without the worry of having your private records gathered and agents knocking on your door, then your First Amendment rights start to feel less guaranteed. They want to bully companies into handing over our data and to chill users’ speech. This is unacceptable in a democratic society.” Administrative subpoenas like the one sent to Google about Doe are not self-enforcing, not signed by a judge, and require a court order to make them actionable. They are often issued to companies silently, without the person they target knowing about them unless notified by the company. DHS has used them previously to try to unmask anonymous social media users who posted about ICE raids and has also used them to try to pressure Columbia University into sharing information about a student who had participated in pro-Palestinian protests. After the ACLU of Northern California and ACLU of Pennsylvania filed motions challenging some of these subpoenas issued to gather information about Instagram, and Facebook users, DHS withdrew the subpoenas. "If tech companies and other private actors are expected to hand over information about users just because of their political beliefs, there’s no telling when the requests would stop,” said Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Companies like Google know a lot about our lives, and we should feel confident that the government can’t get their hands on that information on a whim; it would damage the trust of users who allow them to collect sensitive information about their lives and preferences, and it would chill political expression across the board. These abusive subpoenas seek to punish individuals for their speech, but that is prohibited by the First Amendment.” The motion to quash the subpoena was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Northern California, and the ACLU of Pennsylvania. The motion can be viewed here.