The **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)** has taken legal action against the **Department of Homeland Security (DHS)** and **Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)**, seeking transparency regarding the agencies' use of administrative subpoenas to identify individuals who have criticized them online. ### Subpoenas Targeting First Amendment Activity According to court documents and news reports, **DHS** has utilized administrative subpoenas over the past year to uncover the identities of individuals documenting **ICE** activities, expressing criticism of the government, or participating in protests. These subpoenas are issued to technology companies, demanding information about internet users often engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment. ### Lack of Judicial Oversight A key concern is that these administrative subpoenas do not require judicial approval, raising questions about their legality. In previous instances, when challenged in court with the assistance of **American Civil Liberties Union** affiliates, **DHS** withdrew the subpoenas rather than face a legal decision. ### **EFF**'s Legal Action After **DHS** and **ICE** failed to respond to **EFF**'s public-records requests for documents related to these subpoenas, the **EFF** filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. "**DHS** and **ICE** should not be able to first claim that they have the legal authority to unmask critics and then run from court when users challenge these administrative subpoenas," said **EFF** Deputy Legal Director **Aaron Mackey**. "The public deserves to know what laws the agencies believe give them the power to issue these speech-chilling subpoenas." ### Scope of Subpoenas While administrative subpoenas cannot be used to obtain the content of communications, they have been used to attempt to acquire basic subscriber information, such as name, address, IP address, length of service, and session times. If a technology company refuses to comply, the agency's only recourse is to drop the subpoena or seek a court order. ### Call to Tech Companies In February, **EFF** and the **ACLU** of Northern California sent an open letter to major technology companies, including **Amazon**, **Apple**, **Discord**, **Google**, **Meta**, **Microsoft**, **Reddit**, **SNAP**, **TikTok**, and **X**, urging them to: * Require court intervention and an order before complying with **DHS** subpoenas. * Provide users with as much notice as possible when they are targeted by a subpoena. * Resist gag orders that would prevent companies from notifying targeted users. ### Investigation Request for **Google** Last week, **EFF** requested that California's and New York's attorneys general investigate **Google** for allegedly breaking its promise to notify users before sharing their data with law enforcement. This request cited the case of a doctoral student targeted with an **ICE** subpoena after attending a pro-Palestine protest. ### Public Records Requests In early March, **EFF** filed public-records requests with **DHS** and **ICE** for policies, procedures, guidelines, directives, memos, and legal analyses supporting the use of administrative subpoenas. The requests also included Inspector General records, approval and issuance procedures, the number of subpoenas issued, communications with technology companies, communications regarding specific targets or programs, and communications with the **Department of Justice**. **DHS** and **ICE** have not yet responded to these requests, despite **EFF**'s request for expedited processing. "The policies, directives, and authorization records governing the program have not been disclosed," the complaint states. "The legal basis asserted by **DHS** and **ICE** for using a customs statute to compel disclosure of information about persons engaged in constitutionally protected speech and association has not been made public."