ICE sent officers to a man's home over an email. Now he's suing
A New York resident, David Streever, filed a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after federal officers delivered a warning notice to his home over a critical email sent to the agency's former acting director. Streever alleges the agency violated his First Amendment rights by targeting his political speech. The case also names Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and is being handled by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
- ▪Streever sent a January email to then‑acting ICE director Todd Lyons criticizing the agency after an officer fatally shot a protester in Minneapolis.
- ▪In June, ICE officers visited Streever's Rochester home and presented his wife with a warning notice labeling the email a threat.
- ▪Streever sued ICE in Washington D.C., claiming the warning infringed on his free‑speech rights under the First Amendment.
- ▪The lawsuit also includes DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin as a defendant, who denied any attempt to suppress speech.
- ▪The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is representing Streever, noting that at least two upstate New York residents received similar warnings for online criticism of ICE.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
An upstate New York resident sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for sending federal officers to his house with a warning over an email he sent to the agency’s one-time head. David Streever, who is a U.S. citizen, was on a trip to Finland when two officers showed up to his Rochester home in June and presented his wife with a warning notice informing him that the email he sent months earlier was considered a threat, his attorneys said. Streever sent the email in January to Todd Lyons, then the acting director of ICE, after an immigration officer fatally shot Minneapolis resident Renee Good during an anti-ICE demonstration.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Washington Times.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Washington Times
