A federal judge ruled Friday that the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security likely violated the First Amendment by pressuring Apple and Facebook to remove platforms used to share information about Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.
In a lawsuit filed in February, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression accused former Attorney General Pam Bondi and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of “repeatedly threaten[ing] to prosecute individuals and entities for disseminating information…about ICE operations.” The case continued against their successors after both officials left office.
The complaint centered on two plaintiffs: Kassandra Rosado, who created the Facebook group “ICE Sightings – Chicagoland,” and Kreisau Group LLC, which created the app “Eyes Up.” According to the lawsuit, both platforms were used to share information about immigration enforcement activity, including videos of operations.
Their removals followed controversy over a similar app, ICEBlock. Last July, Noem threatened to prosecute CNN for reporting on the app, and Bondi said on Fox News that the app’s creator “better watch out.” By early October, Apple had removed apps including Eyes Up from its App Store, and Facebook had removed “ICE Sightings – Chicagoland.”
Apple and Facebook said the platforms were removed for guideline violations. But the complaint said neither company had previously cited violations or indicated the platforms were at risk of removal before federal officials intervened.
After the Facebook group, which had nearly 100,000 members, was removed, Bondi wrote on social media that the Justice Department had been involved and accused the group of doxing and targeting ICE agents. She also said the department would “continue engaging tech companies to eliminate platforms where radicals can incite imminent violence against federal law enforcement.”
U.S. District Judge Jorge L. Alonso found that the plaintiffs’ speech “injuries are likely traceable to government-coerced enforcement.” He wrote that Bondi’s and Noem’s statements “may not be direct threats to prosecute Facebook and Apple, they are intimations of a threat,” adding, “And thinly veiled threats such as these constitute sufficient evidence on which Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim.”