The Department of Homeland Security is seeking access to neighborhood "rapid response" Signal group chats as it defends against a lawsuit accusing it of violating protesters' First Amendment rights, according to WIRED. Attorneys for the protesters argue that the discovery demand itself constitutes a First Amendment violation.
The Case at Hand
The case, Hilton v. Noem, was filed in federal court in Maine earlier this year, WIRED reported. Plaintiffs accuse DHS of violating their First Amendment rights by surveilling their activities. For example, one plaintiff alleges that DHS agents scanned her face and collected her license plate information while she was observing Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity, telling her they were going to put her in a "nice little database."
Maine residents began organizing together after immigration enforcement activity ramped up in their neighborhoods, WIRED reported. This organizing included starting group chats on Signal to share when and where DHS operations were taking place.
What the Government Sought
As part of the lawsuit, the government was granted discovery. According to a declaration from Genevieve Nadeau, one of the attorneys representing the protesters and special counsel and program lead for Protect Democracy's Civil Society Defense, the government sought several specific categories of material:
| Requested item | Scope per court filings |
|---|---|
| Protest attendance lists | A list of all the protests each of the named defendants attended |
| Communications and reactions | Any communications, including comments or "likes," reflecting the named plaintiffs' "beliefs and opinions regarding law enforcement personnel, operations, tactics, and activity" |
| ICE observation communications | Any communications concerning "opportunities to observe and/or record ICE activity in Maine, from January 20, 2025, to the present" |
The Dispute Over Signal Chats
In June, attorneys for the protesters sent a letter to the Department of Justice saying they were intentionally withholding all community group Signal chats that would otherwise be considered responsive to the government's requests, WIRED reported. The attorneys turned over smaller Signal group chats to the court but said in the letter that they had redacted the contact information of people who weren't plaintiffs in the case, as well as communications that revealed the priorities of a Signal community group chat or might reveal any tactics or strategies used by one.
Attorneys for the government also deposed plaintiffs and asked numerous questions about the community Signal group chats, according to the letter. Some questions included whether public officials or unnamed political groups were participating, whether people from outside Maine were participants, and who the organizers of the chats were.
"The government wants access to private Signal chats that communities in Maine and around the country are using to coordinate lawful responses to dangerous abuses of power playing out on the streets where they live and work. We're asking the court to deny that access and shut down the government's attempt to intrude on the fundamental First Amendment right to engage in collective action that is so critical to a healthy democracy." — Genevieve Nadeau, attorney for the protesters and Protect Democracy
DHS and the Department of Justice, which is litigating the case, did not respond to a request for comment, WIRED reported.
Legal and Political Context
"You shouldn't have to give up that First Amendment right to expressive association if you need to sue to protect your First Amendment rights," Adam Steinbaugh, a senior attorney at FIRE, a nonprofit civil liberties group, told WIRED.
WIRED also reported that DHS "has been relentless in its pursuit of people who are critical of the administration's immigration policies." The government has attempted to unmask critics, including one Canadian, by subpoenaing tech companies to obtain their names and other identifying information. Separately, ICE's internal watchdog has investigated more than 100 instances of what it says are "incidents of doxing and threats" against ICE employees.
Implications for Encrypted Enterprise Messaging
The dispute centers on Signal, an encrypted messaging platform widely used by enterprises and civil society groups for sensitive coordination. For technology decision-makers, the case illustrates that even end-to-end encrypted group communications can become the target of legal discovery when litigation arises. Organizations deploying Signal or similar tools should be aware that messages, member lists, and metadata may be subject to court orders, subpoenas, and discovery requests, as demonstrated by the government's efforts in this case to obtain details about group participants, organizers, and outside members. The eventual ruling in Hilton v. Noem could shape how courts balance government discovery demands against the First Amendment rights of users of encrypted platforms, a question with direct relevance to enterprises operating in politically sensitive or regulatory environments.
Sources:
