Court: The First Amendment Allows You To Tell The ICE Director He’s A ‘Sad, Despised Man’

Listen to the article

0:00

0:00

1.0x

Key Takeaways

Playback Speed

Select a Voice

You may recall that back in July we had the ridiculous story of how ICE decided to go all gestapo on its critics, including tracking down and threatening David Streever, who had emailed then-acting ICE director Todd Lyons back in January, after federal agents killed some peaceful protestors in Minnesota. Streever’s email was pretty straightforward:

“You are a monstrous human being and will go down in history as America’s Reinhard Heydrich, the butcher.

“The way you are protecting the obvious execution in Minnesota, even as we see the videos, will lead to your downfall. Even Trump will turn on you before the end, and you will be a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame at your own pathetic weakness.

“You will never know peace. You will seek to lose yourself, to escape the burden of knowing the truth about yourself. But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth.”

Honestly, pretty mild, given what monsters nominal immigration officials have become. But, alas, DHS couldn’t handle someone being mean on main to their boss. They sent federal law enforcement officials to try to find him at his home to leave him a “warning” about his email. When they found out that Streever was out of the country (taking his daughter to an amusement park in Finland), they tracked his flight home and showed up at the hotel near JFK where he was staying overnight, hoping — unsuccessfully — to meet with him. Agents also left a ridiculous “warning notice” with Streever’s wife:

As our initial article made clear, everything about this was bizarre, intimidating, and stupid. ICE’s “Office of Professional Responsibility” is supposed to be making sure that ICE agents are acting professionally and responsibly — not engaging in unprofessional and irresponsible investigations of people who are criticizing ICE leaders.

Streever, along with lawyers from FIRE, sued Homeland Security, and just received a big initial win. Judge Rudolph Contreras is not at all impressed with DHS’s arguments, and points out that criticizing public officials is kind of a big deal here, what with our First Amendment and all:

Americans have long voiced their displeasure with their government. The Declaration of Independence itself is a list of grievances between Americans and the British government. And Americans have not always indulged in the elevated prose of the Declaration. Government officials have long endured “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.” N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).

Today is no different. Plaintiff David Streever expressed his displeasure with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) by sending a three-paragraph email to the agency’s Acting Director, Defendant Todd Lyons. Mr. Streever compared Acting Director Lyons to an infamous Nazi and predicted that he would become “a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame at [his] own pathetic weakness.”

What is different is how the government responded in this case. ICE dispatched agents to Mr. Streever’s home and delivered to him a “WARNING NOTICE.” The notice threatened him with prosecution if he did not “discontinue” his criticism of ICE. Because that notice likely violates Mr. Streever’s First Amendment right to free speech, the Court will grant, in part, Mr. Streever’s motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from relying on the Warning Notice, issuing similar threats, or making good on the threats in the Warning Notice.

Note — as the court does — that nothing in Streever’s email to Lyons came anywhere close to being a “true threat” that would take it out of the protective cloak of the First Amendment. Hell, it’s not even remotely near what could be read as a threat:

More importantly, the email does not contain a physical threat. The email registered displeasure with Acting Director Lyons’s official conduct, forecasted that the Acting Director will lose favor with the President, and warned that the moral weight of the Acting Director’s actions will haunt him in the future…. Although Mr. Streever’s email was not kind, and may not have been particularly productive, it was a far cry from a “[t]rue threat[ ] of violence” sufficient for the email to shed its First Amendment protections.

The court notes that ICE had apparently “closed” the investigation after delivering that bizarre notice to Streever’s wife, but never informed Streever that the investigation was closed. However, when Streever sued, DHS decided to respond publicly to a post by FIRE about the lawsuit:

If you can’t see that, it’s DHS angrily posting:

Any allegation DHS and its components are attempting to ‘squash’ free speech is categorically FALSE.

ICE investigates all credible threats towards its employees and officers, including threats to the ICE Director. As a matter of policy, we do not comment on any ongoing investigations.

Our law enforcement officers are on the frontlines arresting terrorists, gang members, murderers, child sex abusers, and rapists. They are experiencing coordinated campaigns of violence against them and facing a 1,300% increase in assaults against them, a 3,300% increase in vehicular attacks, and an 8,000% increase in death threats.

ANYONE who assaults or threatens our law enforcement officers will face the consequences.

Thing is, a federal judge now says that’s bullshit, and that this was obviously an attempt to squash free speech. Indeed, this very tweet comes back to hurt DHS, as the judge sees that it is clearly designed to further intimidate Streever and others.

Still, the judge rejects part of Streever’s request for an injunction against being investigated, noting that ICE claims they closed the investigation into him. Streever points out that the tweet suggests otherwise, but the judge accepts that ICE’s investigation is over.

But he is greatly troubled by that bullshit “warning notice” left at his home, and notes that even if the investigation is closed, the “warning notice” and its speech suppressing statements are still in effect:

The Warning Notice is a different matter. Defendants have not disavowed the Warning Notice, nor do they deny that it remains in effect. The Warning Notice therefore provides a continuing injury over which Mr. Streever has standing to sue.

The Supreme Court has recognized that when the government directly threatens a party with future enforcement actions targeting their First Amendment activity, it creates an on-going injury at least where there is a “distinct possibility of” enforcement.

And since the notice orders Streever to self-censor to avoid future trouble, the court sees it as a real First Amendment problem for DHS:

Mr. Streever likewise faces a distinct possibility of prosecution for future speech. The Warning Notice requests that Mr. Streever “discontinue” his political speech and threatens prosecution, if he does not.

And here’s where that raging tweet harms DHS’s case even further:

Even if the Warning Notice were not explicit enough, a DHS spokesperson later posted on social media, in response to a post about Mr. Streever’s lawsuit, specifically referencing a purported “credible threat towards . . . the ICE Director” and warned that “ANYONE who assaults or threatens our law enforcement officers will face the consequences.” Homeland Security (@DHSgov), X (July 6, 2026, at 3:06 p.m.). This public statement and the reference to “consequences” further underscores that Mr. Streever faces a credible threat of government reprisal.

Judge Contreras does not buy DHS’s retort that they’re simply warning Streever not to violate federal law, pointing out that there’s no way you can read the Warning Notice that isn’t an attempt to suppress Streever’s speech:

Defendants dismiss the Warning Notice as merely a reminder to Mr. Streever “not to violate federal law” and argue it represents at most a past injury. Defs.’ Opp’n at 19. The Warning Notice, however, is not quite so innocuous. In the opening paragraph, it identifies Mr. Streever’s January email and states that OPR “has reason to believe [it] may constitute a violation of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.” Compl., Ex. 2. It then requests that Mr. Streever “promptly remove and/or discontinue the aforementioned behavior.” Id. (emphasis added). Defendants seem to understand “aforementioned behavior” to refer to criminal threats generally. But because of the immediately preceding reference to Mr. Streever’s email to Acting Director Lyons, this request is fairly read as a demand that Mr. Streever refrain from criticizing Acting Director Lyons.

The notice also warns Mr. Streever of the potential for prosecution. After describing Mr. Streever’s email as a potential “violation of Title 18,” the notice goes on to describe various crimes under that title and remind Mr. Streever that “[v]iolations of these or related laws could subject you to both federal and state prosecution.” Id. (emphasis removed). If that were not enough, the letter closes by telling Mr. Streever that “[r]eceipt of this Notice will be taken into consideration, should you continue to be involved in any criminal activities described above.” Id. The use of “continue” implies that Mr. Streever’s email already exposed him to criminal liability and, critically, that any similar speech by Mr. Streever in the future will be viewed the same way.

All told, the Warning Notice demands that Mr. Streever “discontinue” his political speech criticizing Acting Director Lyons. It does so while reminding Mr. Streever of the risk of prosecution and warning him that if he “continue[s]” to criticize Acting Director Lyons and ICE, the fact that he has been warned for his past speech “will be taken into consideration,” implying future prosecutions. Political speech is not a crime, so that is hardly a reminder to follow the law. And because the Warning Notice speaks of “discontinu[ing]” Mr. Streever’s political speech and threatens consequences if he “continue[s]” to speak out, it represents a continuing, rather than a past, injury.

The court also rejects the argument from DHS that Streever is trying to block a “speculative” future harm of being arrested and or prosecuted. But as the judge points out, that’s not the issue here. The existing chilling effect on speech is already a harm:

Mr. Streever is not merely alleging that he will be injured at some point in the future because he will face an investigation or prosecution down the line. That would be closer to the risk of being subjected to a chokehold in the future in Lyons because it would rely on predicting the future actions of Mr. Streever and law enforcement. …

Mr. Streever’s injury is the loss of his freedom to engage in political speech now because the threat of such an investigation or prosecution looms over him like the sword of Damocles, and he is forced to self-censor under that threat…. That loss of speech is both imminent and certain because it does not rely on Defendants actually opening a new investigation. The Warning Notice works because Mr. Streever is too intimidated by the threat of future government action that he will not test whether the government will follow through on its threat. As the Supreme Court recently explained, “[t]he value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs—not that it drops.” First Choice, 608 U.S. at 192 (quoting Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 231 (1974) (Marshall, J., dissenting)).

DHS also claims that because Streever doesn’t have any “concrete plans” to engage in more such speech in the future, then he can’t show harm. The court (rightly) finds that argument to be quite silly:

Even viewed through the lens of a future injury, Mr. Streever’s case is distinguishable from those cited by Defendants because the type of speech at issue here is different. Mr. Streever seeks to engage in speech through off-the-cuff emails and comments on social media…. This spontaneous speech is different in kind from the sorts of premediated future activities for which courts have expected concrete plans. … Given the spontaneous nature of the speech at issue here, it would be pedantic to require Mr. Streever to detail exactly when he anticipates speaking out against the government next and what he plans to say.

In the end, the court won’t bar the government from investigating Streever (again, ICE insists the investigation is closed) but it does vacate the “Warning Notice” outright, and bars DHS from leaning on it going forward. While the judge considers Streever’s request to block future investigations of his speech, the judge notes he’s not sure he can really do that. If future speech actually contains true threats or violates laws in other ways, an investigation has to be allowed. But clearly mindful of the chilling effects here, the court makes it clear that continuing to harass Streever over his political speech is not allowed.

The Court will, for the time being, vacate the Warning Notice; it will preliminarily enjoin Defendants from relying on the Warning Notice and Mr. Streever’s January email in future prosecutions and investigative demands; and it will preliminarily enjoin Defendants from issuing similar warnings to Mr. Streever that suggest he cannot engage in non-threatening criticism of the government.

DHS whined to the judge that ICE is facing oh so many threats (based on very bullshit claims by DHS), but the judge notes that this is a narrow injunction, one that still leaves ICE free to investigate actual threats. But it does mean that you are free to let ICE officers know that they are monstrous human beings who will be reviled in history, and that they are sad and despised.

Read the full article here