ACLU of Rhode Island Statement on South Kingstown Executive Order Barring Any Gatherings of More than 15 People

MEMPHIS – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Selendy Gay PLLC, and BraunHagey Borden LLP filed a declaration on behalf of client Hunter Demster detailing the Memphis Safe Task Force’s continuing campaign of retaliation and intimidation against him for recording immigration and law enforcement activity. Memphis Safe Task Force (Task Force) agents also abused Tennessee’s Halo Law to tackle and arrest Mr. Demster while he was recording them apprehending an individual. On two occasions over five days, Task Force agents have appeared outside Mr. Demster’s home and photographed or filmed him and his home. Mr. Demster was also pinned down and arrested after Task Force agents abused the Halo Law to continue to push him back and obstruct his view of a scene while recording. The Halo Law criminalizes approaching within 25 feet of an officer after receiving an order to stop approaching or to retreat. Agents used the law as a moving wall, repeatedly issuing new stop-approaching orders as they walked toward Mr. Demster, so that standing still counted as a violation. Videos of these incidents are available here. The incidents come just weeks before a federal district court is set to hear argument on Mr. Demster and other plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Memphis Safe Task Force from retaliating against our clients who seek to record and observe immigration and law enforcement activities. Alongside the motion, the legal team filed numerous declarations describing how multiple Memphians have been threatened with arrest, intimidated with Task Force vehicles, experienced unlawful traffic stops, and witnessed continued surveillance outside their homes after they filmed the Task Force. “The Task Force has tried to punish and intimidate me for exercising my First Amendment rights, but I will not let them chill my speech,” said Hunter Demster, plaintiff. “It is not only concerning, it is also deeply frightening how their retaliation has escalated – all because I show the world what’s going on in Memphis. I have every right to record and observe what goes on in my own neighborhood, and I will not be intimidated into surrendering my free speech.” The filing details three incidents. The first incident occurred on August 26, 2026, when Mr. Demster observed a group of Task Force agents and proceeded to record the agents’ activities on the sidewalk. Despite not interfering with or impeding Task Force activity, several agents pointed at him and yelled “25 feet.” While he was retreating, two agents continually approached him while repeatedly invoking the Halo Law. When Mr. Demster asserted that he was considerably more than 25 feet back from the scene and exercising his First Amendment right to record, an agent responded, “You’ve gotta be 25 feet back from me because I’ve extended the scene.” Shortly after, agents surrounded Mr. Demster, tackled him to the ground, pinned him down, restrained his legs, and handcuffed him. Videos of Mr. Demster's arrest are available here, here, and here. While Mr. Demster was under arrest, Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, legal director of the ACLU of Tennessee and co-counsel in this litigation, arrived at the scene. Despite identifying himself as Mr. Demster’s attorney and attempting to speak with Mr. Demster, Mr. Cameron-Vaughn was also ordered to retreat 25 feet and threatened with arrest. Mr. Demster was eventually released at the scene. Video of invocation of the Halo Law against Mr. Cameron-Vaughn is available here. The second incident occurred on August 30, 2026, four days after Mr. Demster was arrested. Mr. Demster was at home when a group of Task Force agents amassed across the street from his home. When Mr. Demster approached the group of agents, one of the agents called Mr. Demster by his name. The agents departed in unmarked vehicles approximately ten minutes later, and, as they left, an agent wearing a U.S. Marshals vest photographed or filmed Mr. Demster and his house. Video of the agents across the street from Mr. Demster’s house is available here. The third incident occurred on September 3, 2026. When Mr. Demster arrived at his home, he saw a Memphis Safe Task Force vehicle parked immediately outside his home. Mr. Demster approached the vehicle and asked why agents were outside his house and if he could help them. One of the agents said no. While Mr. Demster was filming the vehicle, an individual inside the SUV extended his phone out the window and photographed or filmed Mr. Demster. Video of the agents parked outside Mr. Demster’s home and photographing or filming Mr. Demster is available here and here. "Task Force agents should not be staking out our clients' homes simply for recording their activities in public,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "Nor should they abuse the Halo Law to interfere with our clients’ First Amendment right to record. The Task Force’s unrelenting campaign of harassment against Mr. Demster and our other clients for simply documenting their activities is terrifying and a gross violation of their constitutional rights. The court must step in to protect them.” 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 and President Donald Trump. Agents and officers working with the Memphis Safe Task Force have terrorized local communities, conducting mass traffic stops and large-scale immigration arrests, primarily in communities of color. 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. “Task Force agents used Tennessee’s Halo Law as a moving barrier to push Mr. Demster farther and farther from the scene he was documenting,” said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, legal director with the ACLU of Tennessee. “When I identified myself as his attorney and tried to speak with him after his arrest, agents threatened me with arrest too. No one should face intimidation, surveillance, or arrest for peacefully recording law enforcement activity in their own community. The court must act to protect our clients’ First Amendment right to observe and document what public officials do in public.” A hearing for the legal team’s motion for a preliminary injunction will be held on September 23, 2026, in Memphis. The lawsuit was filed in mid-May 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 – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of D.C., and the National Press Photographers Association filed an amicus brief in support of a Minnesota photojournalist’s lawsuit challenging the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR). Earlier this year, as ICE was carrying out brutal immigration raids across the country, the FAA dramatically expanded restrictions on drone flights, banning such flights over any Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facility or “mobile asset,” which included any DHS vehicle. As the amicus explains, the TFR made it functionally impossible for journalists to use drones to gather news in any area where immigration enforcement agents were deployed, violating the First Amendment right to record public officials performing their duties in public. “The FAA’s restriction forced journalists reporting on immigration enforcement activity to ground their drones or risk criminal charges. This choice is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and runs roughshod over the First Amendment right to gather news,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. The brief explains that the FAA’s restriction was not about public safety or national security. Journalists were previously already advised and generally adhered to avoiding airspace around sensitive locations, such as active military bases, airports, and aircraft carriers. Moreover, press drones weren’t interfering with official activity or putting anyone at risk by capturing immigration enforcement activity unfolding in public. "Under Trump, even the Federal Aviation Administration has become a political censor,” said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU-D.C. “The agency should be protecting the safety of the flying public, not protecting ICE from unfavorable news coverage.” The brief further explains that journalists were effectively being censored beyond their DHS coverage, since the unpredictability of where any DHS vehicle may be traveling made it functionally impossible for journalists to use drones for any newsgathering in areas where immigration enforcement agents were deployed without putting themselves at risk of severe legal and financial penalties. “Drones have become essential, safe, and economical tools for documenting government activity and other matters of public concern. By creating an unpredictable moving exclusion zone around DHS assets, the FAA forced visual journalists to choose between abandoning lawful newsgathering and risking severe penalties,” said Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association. “Safety restrictions must be narrowly tailored and consistent with the First Amendment, especially when they limit the public’s ability to observe government officials performing their duties.”

On September 4, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of D.C. and the National Press Photographers Association filed an amicus brief to urge the court to block airspace restrictions on drone flights, banning such flights over any Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facility or “mobile asset,” which includes any DHS vehicle.

Tennessee's execution policies prevent the press from witnessing critical stages before and after a state execution. However, the public needs to know how they work—or don't work—to participate in informed public debate. The ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Tennessee, filed an amicus brief explaining why a provision in the Tennessee Constitution that guarantees access to government proceedings requires greater press access to executions.