NEW YORK — A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit brought by three labor unions against the **Departments of State** and **Homeland Security** can move forward. The lawsuit challenges the government's alleged viewpoint-based surveillance and suppression of protected online expression. **Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein** of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit yesterday, October 1, 2026. The case was initially filed in October 2025 by the **United Automobile Workers (UAW)**, **Communications Workers of America (CWA)**, and **American Federation of Teachers (AFT)**. Representing the labor unions are the **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)**, **Muslim Advocates (MA)**, and the **Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic (MFIA)**. ### Impact on Protected Expression The court's decision is a victory for the plaintiffs, allowing claims to proceed that the government’s social media surveillance program harms union members and impedes the unions' ability to associate with current and potential members. Judge Hellerstein stated: "This threat of adverse immigration consequences, under a government whose harsh immigration crackdowns has been heavily publicized and reported on, is certainly enough to 'deter a person of ordinary firmness from the exercise of First Amendment rights.' It is objectively reasonable that noncitizens would limit their expression of disfavored viewpoints under the [Challenged Surveillance Program] given the credible threat of adverse immigration action from the Government." ### Undermining Union Functions The ruling further emphasized the critical role of free expression in union activities. "The freedom of Plaintiffs' members to speak, associate, and appear publicly is not incidental to union work, but rather is the mechanism through which unions recruit, organize, communicate, and bargain," the Court explained. "A program alleged to silence members and drive them from the unions' rolls therefore strikes at the unions' representational function itself, which is the 'grounds that bring [their] membership together.'" ### The Surveillance Program Under Scrutiny The lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration implemented a mass surveillance program to monitor constitutionally protected speech by noncitizens lawfully present in the U.S. This program reportedly leverages AI and other automated technologies to surveil social media accounts of visa and green card holders, aiming to identify and penalize those who express views disfavored by the government. The surveillance is said to be coupled with a public intimidation campaign, affecting not only noncitizens but also their families, coworkers, and friends. ### Union Leaders React **UAW President Shawn Fain** commented, "No one should have to fear government surveillance or retaliation against their immigration status for expressing their views or participating in their union. We're pleased the Court has allowed this challenge to go forward and will continue fighting to protect the rights of everyone to speak, organize, and advocate without fear." **CWA President Claude Cummings Jr.** called the decision "a victory for working people, for the labor movement, and for our democracy." He added, "Our very freedom is under attack by the Trump administration's online surveillance program, and today's decision is a critical first step toward affirming our freedom to speak, to protest, to organize without fear of government retaliation." **AFT President Randi Weingarten** echoed these sentiments: "Today’s decision is a critical step toward vindicating our Constitutional right to freedom of speech and rejecting the Trump Administration’s cynical attempts to criminalize and punish those who disagree with them." ### Advocates Highlight Chilling Effect **EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lisa Femia** noted the tangible impact of the program: "Our plaintiff-unions have members that have wholly changed the way they interact with social media—including limiting their engagement with union content—because of the government's social media surveillance program. Many have stopped posting online together, and have even stopped engaging in offline activities, for fear of being scrutinized or targeted related to immigration benefits." **Sadaf Hasan, Staff Attorney at Muslim Advocates**, emphasized the need for accountability: "Today’s ruling is an important step forward in holding the government accountable for its ever-expansive online surveillance program that silenced non-citizens, stoking fear that exercise of their protected First Amendment rights could result in unfavorable treatment on their immigration applications or worse." **Nick Jones**, a student at the **Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic**, expressed confidence in the case's future: "Defendants' attempt to evade accountability on specious jurisdictional grounds was rightly rejected by the Court. We are excited to see the case now proceed to the merits, where we expect to prevail as well.” For the full ruling, visit the EFF's website: [https://www.eff.org/document/uaw-v-dos-opinion-order-denying-motion-dismiss](https://www.eff.org/document/uaw-v-dos-opinion-order-denying-motion-dismiss) More information about the litigation can be found here: [https://eff.org/cases/united-auto-workers-v-us-department-state](https://eff.org/cases/united-auto-workers-v-us-department-state)