Why It Matters
A federal lawsuit alleges the Department of Homeland Security unlawfully surveilled immigration observers and protesters, then revoked their trusted traveler status in apparent retaliation for their lawful activities. The case raises questions about whether federal agencies have used facial recognition and license plate readers to suppress First Amendment-protected conduct during the current administration’s immigration enforcement operations.
What Happened
Three individuals and the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed suit Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Department of Homeland Security. The lawsuit contends that DHS agencies illegally recorded observers and protesters, identified them through surveillance technology, and revoked trusted traveler program credentials without legal justification.
The complaints center on immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota during January 2025. Two observers—Renee Good and Alex Pretti—were killed during separate ICE and Border Patrol operations 17 days apart. Following those deaths, the lawsuit alleges, federal officers used facial recognition technology and license plate readers to identify individuals who had been present at the scenes or protesting the operations.
Federal officers then allegedly addressed legal observers by name at subsequent encounters without prior contact, and Minnesota residents reported being followed to their home addresses by DHS agents—a practice observers termed “driven home by ICE.”
The suit alleges violations of federal privacy law, the Administrative Procedure Act, and First Amendment protections. Named plaintiffs include Nicole Cleland of Minnesota, Jacquelyn Ivey of South Carolina, and Anna Walker of California. All three reported experiencing intimidation intended to discourage further observation of DHS operations.
By the Numbers
17 days — interval between the deaths of Good and Pretti in January
3 days — time between Nicole Cleland’s Border Patrol encounter and her Global Entry revocation
2023 — year DHS published its facial recognition policy
The Revoked Credentials
Nicole Cleland, one of the Minnesota plaintiffs, had her Global Entry trusted traveler status revoked three days after a Border Patrol encounter. According to the lawsuit, Cleland’s revocation came in apparent retaliation for her observation activities. She subsequently stopped monitoring DHS operations out of fear of further retaliation.
Ivey and Walker reported experiencing “fear, anxiety and emotional distress” as a result of the alleged surveillance and targeting. The lawsuit also references similar activity in Maine, North Carolina, and Chicago, suggesting the pattern extended beyond Minnesota.
A Customs and Border Protection spokesperson said Global Entry can be denied to applicants unable to demonstrate low-risk traveler status, and that revocations are not based on First Amendment exercise. The agency also noted that a Global Entry ombudsman provides additional oversight of some revocation cases.
Zoom Out
The lawsuit reflects broader tensions between federal immigration enforcement and civil liberties advocates during the Trump administration’s intensified immigration operations. Surveillance technology, particularly facial recognition and automated license plate readers, has become a focal point in debates over government power and privacy rights. Federal agencies have expanded their use of these tools in recent years, but questions persist about oversight, accuracy, and whether they are deployed in ways that chill lawful protest or observation.
The allegations also highlight the intersection of immigration enforcement and First Amendment protections. Legal observers play a documented role in deterring police and federal abuse, yet they increasingly report being targeted for their presence at enforcement scenes.
What’s Next
The case will proceed in federal court. The lawsuit demands that DHS cease its alleged surveillance and targeting practices, restore the revoked trusted traveler status, and provide damages to the plaintiffs. DHS did not respond to questions about its recording practices or the facial recognition policies at issue. The outcome may influence how federal agencies deploy surveillance technology in immigration enforcement going forward.