FOIA Request Regarding DHS "Unmasking" Subpoenas

  • Filed: April 18, 2026
  • Status: Filed
  • Court: Eastern District for Pennsylvania
  • Latest Update: Apr 23, 2026
Placeholder image

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania has filed a complaint in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 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 the identities of people online and intimidate individuals who are critical of the federal government. ACLU-PA has represented two clients who have been targets of DHS subpoenas. In both cases, DHS ended its investigations once they were challenged in court.

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 this request, nor did the agency confirm receipt or request an extension.

Our case states that ICE has a statutory obligation under FOIA to respond to our request and asks the court to order ICE to immediately make a complete search for all responsive records and fulfill our request.

Attorney(s):
Stephen Loney and Ari Shapell of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

How to fight back when the federal government tries to silence you online

The freedom to openly criticize the government without penalty or punishment is the keystone of our democracy. Free and spirited debate helps inform voters and keeps our elected officials accountable to their oath of office to serve the people and defend the Constitution. 

By Steve Loney

Cell phone image with a number of app icons visible on phone screen

Related News & Podcasts

News & Commentary
Feb 19, 2026
Cell phone image with a number of app icons visible on phone screen
  • First Amendment Rights|
  • +1 Issue

How to fight back when the federal government tries to silence you online

The freedom to openly criticize the government without penalty or punishment is the keystone of our democracy. Free and spirited debate helps inform voters and keeps our elected officials accountable to their oath of office to serve the people and defend the Constitution. 

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.