DHS Wants Protesters’ Signal Group Chats
The US Department of Homeland Security is seeking access to neighbourhood "rapid response" Signal group chats as part of its defence against a lawsuit alleging it violated protesters' First Amendment rights. Lawyers for the protesters say the request itself amounts to a further infringement of that right, since it would force activists to surrender private communications used to organise lawful monitoring of immigration enforcement activity.
The case, Hilton v Noem, was filed in federal court in Maine, with plaintiffs accusing DHS of unlawfully surveilling them, including one who says agents scanned her face and logged her licence plate while she observed ICE operations. Through discovery, the government has demanded records of protests attended, communications reflecting plaintiffs' views on law enforcement, and details of Signal chats used to track ICE activity since January 2025. Protesters' attorneys have withheld the larger community chats and redacted sensitive details, while government lawyers have questioned plaintiffs about who organised the chats and who took part. DHS and the Department of Justice declined to comment, though civil liberties lawyers argue no one should have to forfeit associational rights to pursue a constitutional claim.
In short
- DHS is demanding protesters' private Signal group chats via a lawsuit's discovery process
- Protesters' lawyers call the request itself a First Amendment violation
- Case, Hilton v Noem, centres on alleged DHS surveillance of Maine immigration activists
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The government contends that standard litigation discovery requires both parties to produce relevant evidence, and understanding the scope and nature of plaintiffs' activities is probative to defending against allegations of unlawful surveillance. Courts have developed safeguards including protective orders and redactions to balance the discovery needs essential to fact-finding with legitimate privacy concerns.
The case against
Civil liberties advocates argue that requiring citizens to disclose private communications documenting political organising merely to exercise their constitutional right to sue creates a chilling effect on protected association. They contend that conditioning legal remedy for government wrongdoing on surrendering such communications effectively punishes the act of suing and undermines citizens' practical ability to challenge institutional power.
Explained simply
Signal is an encrypted messaging app that people use to communicate privately. In some US neighbourhoods, residents have formed “rapid response” groups to share information when immigration agents are operating nearby, including to organise observation of those activities.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) oversees immigration enforcement, including through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The protesters’ case, Hilton v Noem, is a federal lawsuit in Maine alleging that the government unlawfully monitored people observing ICE; the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects freedoms including speech and peaceful association.
The dispute over chat records raises questions about how much information the government can seek from people bringing a constitutional case, and how that affects private communications and group organising. It also concerns what evidence each side may request during the process of preparing a lawsuit for trial.