A federal judge on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction in the case of Dan Streever, who was investigated by the Department of Homeland Security for criticizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, finding the government likely violated Streever’s First Amendment Rights.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday in a lawsuit brought by Streever, who was investigated by ICE after sending a critical email to then-acting ICE Director Todd Lyons.
“Americans have long voiced their displeasure with their government,” Contreras wrote, noting that government officials have historically faced “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.”
Streever sent Lyons a three-paragraph email in January after two Minnesotans were fatally shot by ICE officers. In the message, Streever compared Lyons to Reinhard Heydrich, a senior Nazi official, and predicted that Lyons would become “a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame” over his actions.
ICE later referred the email to its Office of Professional Responsibility, which said it viewed the message as having “potential threatening undertones” and was a possible safety concern.
Five months after Streever sent the email, two ICE agents traveled to his home in Rochester, New York, to question him. Streever was in Europe at the time, so the agents spoke with his wife and left a warning notice for him.
The notice was headed, “YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW,” and said Streever could face federal and state prosecution if he continued with conduct described as threatening federal officials. It also instructed him to “remove and/or discontinue” the behavior.
Streever’s attorneys argued that the warning amounted to a government threat intended to deter him from criticizing ICE. Contreras agreed that the notice likely crossed that line.
“The notice practically shouts that Mr. Streever may be prosecuted if he continues to engage in his political speech,” Contreras wrote.
Although ICE said its investigation was closed at the end of June, Streever was not told that it had ended. After he sued in July, DHS said on social media that ICE investigates “all credible threats” against its employees and officers and does not comment on ongoing investigations.
Contreras said that, regardless of whether the investigation itself had ended, the warning notice remained a threat of prosecution if Streever continued his criticism. That made his concerns about future government action more than a subjective fear, the judge wrote.
The injunction prevents DHS and ICE from relying on the warning notice, issuing similar threats against Streever over protected speech, or following through on the threats in the notice while the case continues. The judge emphasized that the order does not prevent the government from investigating genuinely threatening future conduct.
“Mr. Streever has a right to express his political views through non-threatening speech, however degrading the speech might be,” Contreras wrote.
Adam Steinbaugh, a senior attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represents Streever, said the case concerned the government’s response to criticism.
“ICE knowingly pursued an American citizen for criticizing his government — speech that is at the heart of the First Amendment,” Steinbaugh said. “Ominous letters warning people their speech might land them in prison are meant to coerce people into silence, and that’s not how the First Amendment works.”
CONGRESS IS WRESTLING WITH AI DEVELOPMENT. HERE ARE FIVE BILLS TO WATCH
Streever said he hoped the ruling would reassure others that they can criticize the government without being discouraged from expressing their views.
“I cherish our right to speak openly about issues of public concern,” Streever said in July. “I hope others will not be discouraged from peacefully expressing their views, even when those views are critical of the government.”