Background and inset: Federal agents hold cameras up to Maine residents recording their activities (Lawsuit).
The Trump administration has admitted that agents with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) threatened to put Maine women observing their activities onto a federal watchlist.
In a 24-page court filing, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sought to convince a judge that a temporary restraining order (TRO) and immediate relief by the legal observers are unnecessary. Though conceding that DHS officers “suggested” that citizens” information would be taken during interactions at immigration-enforcement operations, the DOJ maintains that no such promises were followed up on.
“While DHS, as do other law enforcement agencies, maintains databases relevant to law enforcement investigations, the officers involved in the encounters with Plaintiffs did not enter their information into a database or watchlist related to those encounters,” the filing states. “Defendants acknowledge that officers on the ground suggested otherwise, however, those statements were contrary to DHS policy.”
The Trump administration went so far as to share declarations from DHS Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) leaders stating that neither Elinor Hilton nor Colleen Fagan were placed on any database. Moreover, the federal immigration agency sent a memo to agents reminding them of “First Amendment Protected Activities.”
“[A]gents throughout Maine have recently been reminded of this First Amendment policy and requested to adhere to the guidance within,” the DOJ’s filing adds.
The First Amendment is indeed the crux of Hilton’s and Fagan’s class-action lawsuit against DHS. Filed last month, the complaint claims that then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the Trump administration were violating U.S. citizens’ First Amendment rights by using facial recognition software and other technology to identify, track, and intimidate them.
The legal observers cited specific alleged examples in which, while photographing and recording agents’ behavior, they were approached by federal officers and threatened with statements such as, “If you keep coming to things like this, you are going to be on a domestic terrorist watchlist” and “We have a nice little database. And now you’re considered a domestic terrorist, so have fun with that.”
Among other things, the plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) or permanent injunction barring federal officials and those who serve under them “from engaging in the unconstitutional collection, maintenance, and dissemination of records based on First Amendment-protected activity and from threatening, harassing, and otherwise retaliating against Plaintiffs and other Class Members for exercising their First Amendment rights.”
The Trump administration, however, reaffirmed that DHS did not authorize any alleged threats and said that even if some were made, they did not lead to any further action.
“To the extent that agents involved in the January 2026 encounters made statements suggesting that Plaintiffs would be placed in a database or watchlist because they were lawfully engaging in First Amendment-protected activity, those statements were not approved or condoned by DHS and were inconsistent with DHS policy,” the Thursday filing states. “Agents were told not to make such statements.”
In its opposition to the plaintiffs’ request for a TRO, the DOJ recounts how the Maine women “argue that if DHS did not in fact place them into a database or watchlist, then immigration officers ‘are deliberately lying about doing so to intimidate lawful observers for exercising their First Amendment activity,’ and should therefore be enjoined from making such statements to Plaintiffs in the future. Plaintiffs also presume that they will be entered into a database in the future.”
But the TRO request must be denied, per the DOJ’s filing, as “[a]llegations about past encounters with a few officers do not establish a sufficient likelihood that these Plaintiffs will experience the same interactions again.” They add that the women “fail to establish a real and immediate likelihood that they will encounter agents who will make similar statements in the future, or that such statements—now known to be empty threats—would create an objectively reasonable chilling effect if Plaintiffs were to hear them again.”
The DOJ once again concedes the inappropriate actions by certain agents, stating, “[i]ndeed, Defendants have confirmed that these statements were contrary to policy and issued a reminder of that policy to Maine agents.”
Hilton and Fagan responded two days later, arguing that the DOJ filing and attached declarations “fail” to address their main arguments.
“For example, Defendants avoid divulging where Plaintiffs’ data now resides, saying only that a search of a subset of undefined ‘systems’ indicates that neither Plaintiff is under ‘investigation or monitoring’ by certain agencies within [Immigration and Customs Enforcement],” they wrote. “That intentionally avoids addressing the relevant question—namely, where the government is storing Plaintiffs’ data. If Defendants did not retain Plaintiffs’ biometric and other personal data, they could and would say so. What Defendants’ declarations don’t say is telling.”
They go on, at length:
Faced with video evidence that federal agents unlawfully targeted Plaintiffs while they engaged in protected activity, Defendants seek to evade responsibility and offer no meaningful remedy. Defendants concede that agents made unlawful threats, but insist that the agents’ statements “do not reflect DHS policy.” Yet the only evidence of DHS policy they produce is a short email sent to ERO agents in the Boston Field Office just hours before Defendants filed their opposition and weeks after the conduct not only occurred, but became widely known. This email is entirely self-serving and for purposes of this litigation alone. It is not probative of any observed “policy,” especially in light of record evidence showing that DHS agents in Maine and across the country have engaged in an undeniable pattern of threatening and harassing lawful observers. Accordingly, the Court should order the limited relief Plaintiffs seek.
Senior U.S. District Judge John Woodcock held a hearing for Hilton and Fagan’s motion for a TRO on Monday. An order is expected soon.
