Federal Lawsuit Challenges Alleged Intimidation of ICE Observers
In the face of mounting tensions and accusations against federal immigration officers, a new lawsuit filed by activists and the nonprofit Common Cause seeks to address alleged intimidation tactics used against those who monitor immigration enforcement activities. This legal action could have significant implications for observers across the country who document ICE operations.
Michael Khalili, a Minneapolis resident, has spent months documenting the activities of federal immigration officers in the Twin Cities. His efforts intensified after the controversial shooting of fellow observer Alex Pretti earlier this year. Khalili emphasizes the importance of observers, stating, “That’s the only reason why the government’s lies fell apart… And that’s why it’s critical that people are out there.”
However, Khalili has recently ceased his observations due to increasing risks and family concerns. He recounts instances of federal officers taking photos of him and his vehicle, suggesting he cease his activities. Following one such encounter in March, Khalili’s Global Entry status was revoked, only to be reinstated after a journalist’s inquiry. In another incident, a state trooper threatened him with a harassment charge for following ICE vehicles.
These events, coupled with the indictment of 15 Minnesota activists on charges including following ICE vehicles, have led Khalili to stop his activities. Concerns from his wife about potential arrests further influenced his decision. “She was concerned that federal agents could show up at our home and could arrest me in front of our children,” he shared.
Legal Action Against Federal Agencies
Despite stepping back from active observation, Khalili has joined a lawsuit against federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI. The suit alleges violations of the First Amendment and privacy rights of observers and seeks to prevent federal agencies from intimidating or retaliating against them.
Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, Common Cause’s vice president for litigation, emphasized the importance of the lawsuit, stating, “The right of citizens to criticize and hold our government accountable is the backbone of American democracy – and it is under attack.”
The lawsuit follows multiple other cases regarding First Amendment violations but is notable for its national scope and the inclusion of incidents from various states. It highlights numerous encounters where observers faced threats and intimidation, including being photographed, followed, and confronted by federal officers.
Allegations of Retaliation and Intimidation
NPR has documented several instances where observers have described intimidation by federal agents. In Minnesota, agents frequently told observers they were breaking the law. Some activists, like those in Maine, were warned they could be placed on a domestic terrorist watch list or database. A California man running an Instagram account tracking ICE activities faced a subpoena seeking his identity.
The lawsuit details encounters where Common Cause members were photographed, followed, or threatened. In one case, ICE officers reportedly told local police to ban an observer from a public parking lot, citing facial recognition technology to identify them.
Danielle Lang from the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, which is litigating the case, describes the federal actions as a “top-down policy of retaliation” that needs addressing. The lawsuit also references directives from the Trump administration, including the National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, linking immigration enforcement with domestic terrorism.
Beyond threats and arrests, the suit alleges that federal agencies have used tactics like revoking Global Entry and TSA PreCheck statuses to intimidate observers. Khalili’s own experiences, including the revocation of his Global Entry status and frequent law enforcement queries of his records, are part of the lawsuit’s evidence.
Despite the challenges, Khalili remains committed to holding the government accountable. “If the paper trail for the petty things that they did to me can keep somebody else from being pepper-sprayed or murdered, like, why would I not do that?” he expressed.
The outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for how observers of federal activities are treated and ensure protections for those exercising their constitutional rights.
