DHS accused of tracking immigration observers and retaliating through Global Entry

A federal lawsuit accuses the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of collecting the faces, license plates, and identities of people peacefully observing immigration enforcement, then using those records to revoke Global Entry and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) PreCheck privileges.

The 55-page complaint, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, was brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center and three U.S. citizens who say federal agents photographed, scanned, or identified them while they observed immigration operations.

Each lost Trusted Traveler status soon afterward.

The plaintiffs allege DHS adopted an undisclosed policy allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel to create and retain records on people protesting or recording federal operations, even when they had committed no crime.

The lawsuit infers the policy from repeated conduct in several states, internal instructions to collect information on protesters, the removal of privacy safeguards, and DHS’s acknowledgment that information gathered during encounters with people who are not arrested can become an official government record.

It does not establish which systems contain the plaintiffs’ information.

The allegations have not been tested in court. CBP denied that Trusted Traveler memberships are revoked in retaliation for protected speech, saying status may be withdrawn for criminal activity, outstanding warrants, customs or immigration violations, or an inability to demonstrate that a person remains a low-risk traveler.

Nicole Cleland, a Minnesota resident, was observing vehicles she believed carried federal immigration agents on January 10 when a Border Patrol agent approached her car, according to the complaint.

The agent called Cleland by name although she had not identified herself, told her he had facial recognition and that his body camera was operating, then accused her of impeding federal operations. Three days later, DHS revoked her Global Entry and TSA PreCheck without explanation.

Cleland alleges she had no other recent law enforcement contact. Her status had not been restored when the lawsuit was filed, and she says the encounter caused her to stop observing immigration operations because she feared arrest.

Jacquelyn Ivey of South Carolina went to Charlotte, North Carolina, in November 2025 to observe an immigration enforcement surge. As she recorded suspected federal agents, several armed agents surrounded her car. One pointed a phone at her face, photographed her license plate, and demanded her driver’s license, telling her she could not leave until she was identified.

Her Global Entry was revoked ten days later. DHS eventually reinstated it but never explained the decision or confirmed that records created during the encounter had been deleted, the complaint says.

Anna Walker of San Diego followed a suspected federal vehicle through a public Target parking lot on April 1. Two other vehicles boxed in her car while agents aimed phones at her face and photographed her license plate. She was allowed to leave after calling 911.

Walker discovered five days later that her Global Entry had been revoked. After a reporter questioned DHS, her membership was restored, but she received no assurance that the underlying information had been erased.

The case turns partly on what DHS means when it denies maintaining a database of protesters.

In an April response to lawmakers, then-acting ICE Director Todd Lyons denied that ICE operated a database of U.S. citizens protesting its activities or a separate system for people encountered but not arrested.

Lyons nevertheless acknowledged that agents may collect biographic, biometric, and situational information when they believe someone may be interfering with operations or creating a safety concern.

Lyons also said information recorded during an encounter with someone who is neither arrested nor detained becomes an official government record and may be supplemented with open source material and records from other law enforcement agencies.

Biometric Update reported last week that ICE has established an extensive covert social media monitoring capability.

The plaintiffs do not claim DHS created a system formally labeled as a protester database. They argue that the Privacy Act applies whenever an agency collects or maintains an identifiable record, including a photograph, biometric image, or license plate retrievable by a person’s name or another identifier.

The lawsuit cites a January memorandum circulated among agents deployed to Minnesota directing them to capture images, license plates, identification, and information about protesters and alleged agitators in a consolidated form.

It also recounts reports of agents scanning observers’ faces with the Mobile Fortify application and addressing people by name without any visible prior interaction.

In Maine, legal observers alleged agents photographed their faces and vehicles while threatening to place them on a domestic terrorism watchlist. DHS has denied maintaining such a database.

The lawsuit identifies DHS’s Automated Targeting System (ATS) as one possible link between street-level encounters and decisions affecting Global Entry.

ATS can search law enforcement and intelligence holdings, use commercial information such as license plate records, and assemble a consolidated view of data associated with a person.

Its facial recognition functions allow agents to upload a photograph and search DHS holdings for a possible match.

ATS is CBP’s principal vetting tool for Trusted Traveler programs. Global Entry members are continuously vetted, allowing CBP to reconsider their status when new derogatory information becomes available.

The complaint does not prove that information on Cleland, Ivey, and Walker was entered into ATS. It alleges that records on observers are maintained in or accessible through ATS or another DHS system, and that the timing of the revocations supports an inference that information collected during the encounters was used.

The plaintiffs contend ATS’s public notice authorizes its use for border security, customs, immigration enforcement, and counterterrorism, but not for maintaining records on people merely because they observed or protested immigration operations.

The lawsuit also challenges the Trump administration’s removal of two safeguards in early 2025.

A 2023 directive prohibited DHS from using facial recognition or face capture to target someone solely for exercising constitutional rights or to conduct indiscriminate, wide-scale tracking. DHS removed it from its website in February 2025 without publicly explaining the change.

A separate policy required DHS mobile applications to collect personally identifiable or biometric information only when directly necessary for a department mission and documented through the privacy review process. DHS archived it around the same time.

Eight claims accuse DHS and its components of violating the Administrative Procedure Act, failing to perform mandatory duties under the Privacy Act, and retaliating against the three women for protected First Amendment activity.

The plaintiffs want the court to invalidate the alleged policy, restore the rescinded safeguards, and order DHS to delete photographs, video, license information, and vehicle records gathered solely because people engaged in lawful protest or observation.

They also seek to bar the government from using such information to deny Global Entry, TSA PreCheck or other benefits.

Article Topics

airport biometrics  |  border security  |  DHS  |  ICE - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement  |  lawsuits  |  trusted traveller  |  U.S. Government