# DHS Seeks Access to Encrypted Signal Chats in First Amendment Lawsuit **The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)** is embroiled in a legal battle, **_Hilton v. Noem_**, where it stands accused of violating protesters' First Amendment rights through surveillance. In a controversial move, the agency is now demanding access to private **Signal** group chats used by community members, sparking outrage among civil liberties advocates. ## The Heart of the Matter: Surveillance and Free Speech The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Maine, alleges that **DHS** agents engaged in surveillance activities, including scanning faces and collecting license plate information of individuals observing **Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)** operations. One plaintiff recounts being told by agents that her information would be put into a "nice little database." Maine residents began organizing in response to increased immigration enforcement activities, utilizing **Signal** group chats to share information about **DHS** operations. These encrypted chats became a vital tool for community coordination and awareness. ## Government's Discovery Demands As part of the discovery process, the government sought extensive information from the plaintiffs. According to a declaration from **Genevieve Nadeau**, an attorney representing the protesters and special counsel for Protect Democracy’s Civil Society Defense, these demands included: * A list of all protests attended by the named defendants. * Communications, including comments or "likes," reflecting the plaintiffs' "beliefs and opinions regarding law enforcement personnel, operations, tactics, and activity." * Communications concerning "opportunities to observe and/or record **ICE** activity in Maine, from January 20, 2025, to the present." ## Withholding Encrypted Communications In June, attorneys for the protesters informed the **Department of Justice (DOJ)** that they were intentionally withholding all community group **Signal** chats that would otherwise be responsive to the government's requests. While smaller **Signal** chats were provided, contact information of non-plaintiffs and communications revealing community group priorities or tactics were redacted. During depositions, government attorneys pressed plaintiffs with numerous questions about the community **Signal** group chats, including inquiries about the participation of public officials, unnamed political groups, individuals from outside Maine, and the identities of chat organizers. ## A Threat to Collective Action? **Nadeau** emphasized the gravity of the government's demands, stating, "The government wants access to private **Signal** chats that communities in Maine and around the country are using to coordinate lawful responses to dangerous abuses of power playing out on the streets where they live and work. We’re asking the court to deny that access and shut down the government’s attempt to intrude on the fundamental First Amendment right to engage in collective action that is so critical to a healthy democracy." **DHS** and the **DOJ** have not yet responded to requests for comment on the matter. **Adam Steinbaugh**, a senior attorney at **FIRE** (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), a nonprofit civil liberties group, highlighted the chilling effect this could have: "You shouldn’t have to give up that First Amendment right to expressive association if you need to sue to protect your First Amendment rights." This pursuit of private communications is not an isolated incident. **DHS** has previously attempted to unmask critics of its immigration policies, including subpoenaing tech companies for identifying information on individuals, such as a Canadian citizen, who posted anti-**ICE** content. Furthermore, **ICE**'s internal watchdog has investigated over 100 instances of alleged "doxing and threats" against its employees, demonstrating an ongoing focus on online critics.