J. Doe v. DHS

  • Filed: October 16, 2025
  • Latest Update: Feb 11, 2026
Placeholder image

Summary

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; however, given DHS’s abusive pattern of issuing these unlawful administrative subpoenas and retreating once they face litigation, we seek to hold them accountable.

In February, we filed a motion for the federal government to cover legal fees for their baseless attempts to access our clients' data.

Attorney(s):
Witold J. Walczak, Stephen A. Loney, Jr., Ari Shapell, and Keith Armstrong of the ACLU of Pennsylvania; Jacob Snow and Matthew T. Cagle of the ACLU of Northern California; Susan M. Lin, Jonathan H. Feinberg, and Grace Harris of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin, LLP; Seth Kreimer; and Caitlin Barry of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Documents

Learn More About the Issues in This Case

First Amendment Rights Privacy & Security View All Issues

Related Content

Court Case
Feb 02, 2026
Placeholder image
  • First Amendment Rights|
  • +1 Issue

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.