Warning Notice to Man Who Sent Critical E-Mail TO ICE Acting Director Likely Violated First Amendment

Mr. Streever was outraged by the deaths of two Minnesotans, both of whom were shot by ICE officers in January 2026. To register his anger, Mr. Streever sent ICE’s Acting Director, Todd Lyons, a three-paragraph email titled “What’s next.” The email read as follows:

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.

Mr. Streever’s January 26, 2026, email came during an uptick in threats to ICE officers. According to the Assistant Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) Investigations within ICE, Brent Goodwin, “ICE has experienced a 946% increase in threats against ICE officials” between fiscal years 2024 and 2025. “In [fiscal year] 2025, ICE OPR investigated approximately 66 potential threats against senior leaders.”

At some point after ICE received Mr. Streever’s email, it “was forwarded to OPR because it was determined that the email had potential threatening undertones to ICE personnel, potentially presenting a safety concern.” Because “ICE OPR did not have any information about Mr. Streever … OPR determined that it needed to conduct an ICE investigation.” … As part of their investigation, now five months after Mr. Streever sent his email, Agents Henry and Brodie traveled to Mr. Streever’s home in Rochester, New York, to speak with him. But Mr. Streever was not home. He was off traveling in Europe. So the agents spoke with Rev. Hilary Streever, Mr. Streever’s wife. They told her that Mr. Streever “‘may or may not have’ sent an email to Todd Lyons, threatening Lyons” and that they “needed to talk to [Mr.] Streever.”

The agents then handed Ms. Streever a “WARNING NOTICE.” The notice stated at the top: “YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.” It then explained:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is responsible for protecting ICE, its employees, and its facilities against internal and external threats. OPR is responsible for enforcing crimes against the United States as authorized under Title 19 of the U.S. Code and as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, including criminal investigations into threats made against ICE personnel. OPR has identified an email sent to Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, which it has reason to believe may constitute a violation of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Accordingly, OPR is requesting that you promptly remove and/or discontinue the aforementioned behavior.

This Notice officially informs you that it is unlawful to threaten to assault, kidnap, and/or murder a federal official or that federal official’s immediate family member with the intent to impede, intimidate, and/or interfere with the federal official’s duties or retaliate against a federal official due to the performance of their duties. 18 U.S.C. § 115(a). You are further advised that knowingly making restricted personal information about a covered person, or their immediate family member, publicly available with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite the commission of a crime of violence against the person; or with the intent and knowledge that the restricted personal information will be used to threaten, or intimidate, or facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against that person violates federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 119. Violations of these or related laws could subject you to both federal and state prosecution.

OPR has documented the delivery of this Notice to you. Receipt of this Notice will be taken into consideration, should you continue to be involved in any criminal activities described above. If you wish to discuss this Notice and its contents further, please contact the undersigned Special Agent who served you with this Warning Notice or the local OPR field office….

At the end of the month, Agent Henry “wrote a report of investigation to serve as a closing report summarizing the investigation.” “With its investigation closed,” OPR represents that it “does not contemplate any further investigation into Mr. Streever regarding his January 2026 email to Lyons.”

But no one told Mr. Streever that the investigation was closed. Assuming he was still under investigation, Mr. Streever sued Defendants on July 6, 2026. The organization representing Mr. Streever then posted on social media touting Mr. Streever’s lawsuit. A DHS social-media account responded, explaining that “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.” The post closed by emphasizing that “ANYONE who assaults or threatens our law enforcement officers will face the consequences.” A DHS spokesperson gave the same answer to a reporter for National Public Radio, although without the threat of future consequences….

The court concluded that plaintiff had standing to challenge the Warning Notice, which “provides a continuing injury over which Mr. Streever has standing to sue,” and concluded the Warning Notice likely violated the First Amendment:

Defendants wisely do not contest that Mr. Streever’s January email constitutes protected expression or that similar speech would be protected. Mr. Streever’s email addressed salient political decisions to a government official, an arena where the First Amendment’s speech protections reach their “zenith.”

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….

Defendants maintain[, however,] that a mere investigation is not coercive…. [But] Agents Henry and Brodie went beyond mere investigation—especially when they issued the Warning Notice. When distinguishing “between permissible attempts to persuade and impermissible attempts to coerce,” courts must consider whether the conduct, “viewed in context, could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action.” NRA v. Vullo. Some useful indicia include the government’s tone, whether the government could take action against the plaintiff, the perception of a threat, and whether the government references adverse consequences.

Applying this standard, Mr. Streever is likely to succeed in showing that Defendants engaged in coercion, rather than persuasion. OPR did not ask kindly if Mr. Streever would tone down his rhetoric. It dispatched two agents to his home for an unannounced visit where they delivered a “WARNING NOTICE.” Although that notice “request[ed]” that Mr. Streever “discontinue” his political expression, it characterized that political expression as potentially violating federal law which “could subject [him] to both federal and state prosecution.” The notice practically shouts that Mr. Streever may be prosecuted if he continues to engage in his political speech. Even if Defendants’ benign explanation of the notice were plausible, Mr. Streever “reasonably understood [the notice] to convey a threat of adverse government action,” namely prosecution….

[T]he Court finally determines nothing in this decision, and it does not award

Mr. Streever, even preliminarily, all the relief he seeks. The Court merely orders the temporary vacatur of the Warning Notice and preliminarily enjoins Defendants from issuing similar threats to Mr. Streever or from making good on the threats in the Warning Notice while the case continues. Failure to do so would allow the censorship of Mr. Streever to endure during the case, something this Court would be largely unable to remedy afterward and which would undermine Mr. Streever’s position while the case proceeds.

In fact, allowing the continued censorship of Mr. Streever during these proceedings could be tantamount to defeat for Mr. Streever depending on how long final resolution takes because Mr. Streever alleges a desire to speak out about a political issue that is particularly salient now but might not be as critical a year or two in the future. Moreover, the immediate interim period may be of particular importance to Mr. Streever because the speech he seeks to engage in is political, and there is an upcoming federal election just a couple of months away. Thus, even under the Third Circuit’s understanding, a narrow preliminary injunction is appropriate here to stave off censorship during the election cycle and while the issue on which Mr. Streever wishes to speak is most salient…..

The Court is unsure whether it could grant Mr. Streever an injunction covering all future investigations into his protected speech. Generally, courts enjoin a particular investigative demand, rather than enjoining an investigation itself….

For one thing, Defendants argue that they have a legitimate interest in investigating even threats that do not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense as due diligence to ensure that no future criminal act will occur, even if they do not intend to charge the speaker with a criminal threat. Moreover, law enforcement officers—like the rest of us—are generally free to approach a home, knock on the door, and briefly wait for a response, as Agents Henry and Brodie did, regardless of whether they are investigating a crime. Homeowners are likewise free to refuse to speak with law enforcement.

Because the Court is unsure whether it is appropriate to preliminarily enjoin a swath of potential future investigations, the Court declines to do so here…. The Court will therefore focus its injunction on the Warning Notice and the January email. 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….