老熟女午夜福利

In October 2025, our client, 鈥淛on Doe,鈥� read an article in the Washington Post detailing questionable conduct by DHS attorneys attempting to deport an Afghan asylum seeker. In order to express his concern with the government鈥檚 actions, Doe sent a short email to the lead DHS attorney named in the Washington Post article, whose official DHS email address he found via a simple Google search. In his email, Doe urged the attorney to 鈥淸a]pply principles of common sense and decency鈥� in the asylum seeker鈥檚 case.

Four hours later, DHS issued an Immigration Enforcement Subpoena to Google, seeking a variety of private information about Doe, his email account, and his use of Google services. Google notified Doe of the subpoena, and he was shocked and frightened by the government鈥檚 demand for his personal information. Several weeks after DHS issued the subpoena, two DHS agents and a police officer showed up at Doe鈥檚 home and interrogated him about the email he sent.

Our motion to quash argues that the subpoena is unlawful on both constitutional and statutory grounds. Doe鈥檚 email to a government official on a matter of public concern is protected under the First Amendment鈥檚 free speech and petition clauses. The issuance of the subpoena constitutes unconstitutional retaliation by the government, and has impermissibly chilled Doe鈥檚 expression.

Our brief also argues that 8 U.S.C. 搂 1225(d), the federal statute DHS relied upon to issue the subpoena, does not grant authority to issue subpoenas outside the scope of immigration enforcement investigations鈥攎eaning that this subpoena retaliating against Doe for his lawful speech lacks statutory grounds.

This action comes on the heels of a troubling pattern of similar abusive administrative subpoenas issued by DHS that seek to chill constitutionally protected speech. In two other cases filed by the ACLU of Northern California and ACLU of Pennsylvania, DHS agreed to withdraw subpoenas following our legal challenges to them.