ACLU of Pennsylvania Announces Lawsuit After DHS Ignores FOIA Request Regarding “Unmasking” Subpoenas

In February of this year, the ACLU of Pennsylvania submitted a request to ICE under the Freedom Of Information Act, seeking records of unmasking subpoenas from 2024 to the present. ICE did not respond to our request, nor did they confirm receipt, despite a statutory obligation to do so.

April 23, 2026 11:00 am

Media Contact

ACLU-PA, media@aclupa.org

PHILADELPHIA – The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania has filed a complaint in federal court under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain more information about the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) use of administrative subpoenas to “unmask” online identities and intimidate individuals who are critical of the federal government.

ACLU-PA has so far taken on two clients who were the target of such subpoenas. In one case, an Instagram user was posting information about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in Montgomery County and received a notice of the DHS subpoena from Meta.

In a separate incident, a Montgomery County resident sent a concerned email to a government official and, shortly after, was notified by Google that his personal information had been subpoenaed; a few weeks later, federal agents knocked on his door.

In both cases, DHS backed down and rescinded the subpoenas once they were challenged in court. Other ACLU affiliates have sought to quash similar subpoenas in two cases.

“Our clients were doing nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights to criticize the government and, as a result, became the target of DHS subpoenas,” said Stephen Loney, senior supervising attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “Fortunately, when we fight back, we win on this issue. Every time we’ve filed motions to stop these subpoenas, DHS and ICE have cut and run.”

“Beyond holding ICE to its obligations under FOIA, we have brought this lawsuit to hold ICE to account for its unlawful use of unmasking subpoenas intended to chill the First Amendment rights of people who disagree with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement activities,” said Ari Shapell, staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “Our goal with this lawsuit is to share the records we receive with the public, other advocates and academics studying ICE’s overreach to hold the agency accountable.”

In February of this year, the ACLU of Pennsylvania submitted a request to ICE under the Freedom Of Information Act, seeking records of unmasking subpoenas from 2024 to the present. ICE did not respond to our request, nor did they confirm receipt, despite a statutory obligation to do so.

Learn more about the lawsuit here.

###

Related Issues

Privacy & Security First Amendment Rights View All Issues

Related Content

Court Case
Feb 11, 2026
Placeholder image
  • First Amendment Rights|
  • +1 Issue

Doe v. DHS

The “MontCo Community Watch” Facebook and Instagram accounts aim to spread awareness of immigration enforcement activity in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and to share alerts, documentation, and resources to help inform residents within Montgomery County - regardless of their immigration status-of their rights, due process, and the human dignity all their neighbors inherently hold. Additionally, the accounts inform the local community where ICE agents are publicly conducting immigration enforcement activities within Montgomery County. On September 11, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued two administrative Summonses to Meta Platforms, Inc., citing a federal statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1509, focused on customs investigations relating to merchandise. In the Summonses, DHS demanded constitutionally protected information far outside the scope of the statutory authority—including the identity of the Meta users associated with the MontCo Community Watch social media accounts and IP addresses from which each account had been accessed. The Summonses included no substantiating allegations and did not mention any specific crime or potential customs violation that might trigger an inquiry under the cited statute. In October, we filed an urgent motion to quash the administrative subpoenas on behalf of our client "J. Doe," the account manager, arguing that the subpoena was unlawful on both constitutional grounds, as it violated Doe’s First Amendment rights, and statutory grounds. Our motion sought to protect the identities of those associated with MontCo Community Watch from being exposed to a government agency targeting the community watch group for simply exercising their rights to free speech and association. DHS agreed to withdraw the subpoenas following our legal challenges. In February, we filed a motion for the federal government to cover legal fees for their baseless attempts to access our clients' data. This action comes on the heels of a troubling pattern of similar abusive administrative subpoenas issued by DHS that seek to chill constitutionally protected speech. We're seeking to hold DHS accountable and curb the use of these unlawful subpoenas. See our related case here.
Court Case
Feb 02, 2026
Placeholder image
  • First Amendment Rights|
  • +1 Issue

J Doe v. DHS

In October 2025, our client, “Jon Doe,” read an article in the Washington Post detailing questionable conduct by DHS attorneys attempting to deport an Afghan asylum seeker. In order to express his concern with the government’s actions, Doe sent a short email to the lead DHS attorney named in the Washington Post article, whose official DHS email address he found via a simple Google search. In his email, Doe urged the attorney to “[a]pply principles of common sense and decency” in the asylum seeker’s case. Four hours later, DHS issued an Immigration Enforcement Subpoena to Google, seeking a variety of private information about Doe, his email account, and his use of Google services. Google notified Doe of the subpoena, and he was shocked and frightened by the government’s demand for his personal information. Several weeks after DHS issued the subpoena, two DHS agents and a police officer showed up at Doe’s home and interrogated him about the email he sent. In February, we filed a motion to quash, arguing that the subpoena is unlawful on both constitutional and statutory grounds. Doe’s email to a government official on a matter of public concern is protected under the First Amendment’s free speech and petition clauses. The issuance of the subpoena constitutes unconstitutional retaliation by the government, and has impermissibly chilled Doe’s expression. Our brief also argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(d), the federal statute DHS relied upon to issue the subpoena, does not grant authority to issue subpoenas outside the scope of immigration enforcement investigations—meaning that this subpoena retaliating against Doe for his lawful speech lacks statutory grounds.