Court Blocks ICE Warning Notices Used Against Political Critics
Judge says ICE threats against political critics violated free-speech protections
WASHINGTON — U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras has barred federal immigration officials from issuing or enforcing threats of prosecution through formal “warning notices,” ruling that the practice unconstitutionally chills citizens’ rights to criticize government officials.
The case began after David Streever, a New York resident, sent an angry and highly critical email to former ICE official Todd Lyons in January 2026, amid public outrage over the death of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Streever compared Lyons to a notorious Nazi leader and wrote that Lyons would “face internal torment” and “never know peace.”
Months later, while Streever was on vacation, ICE special agents went to his New York home and gave his wife a formal warning notice. The document threatened state or federal prosecution unless Streever stopped making his criticisms.
Streever challenged the notice as a violation of his First Amendment rights with representation from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE. The national civil liberties organization expanded its free-speech advocacy nationwide in 2022. FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh said the government’s warnings were deliberate efforts to frighten citizens into silence.
In a preliminary injunction, Contreras described the notices as a coercive tool hanging over citizens “like the sword of Damocles” to compel self-censorship. He ordered federal immigration officials to stop enforcing the notices and to stop issuing threats of prosecution under them.
The court’s order cited long-standing Supreme Court precedent, including the landmark 1969 decision Watts v. United States and the 2023 ruling in Counterman v. Colorado. Under that standard, political hyperbole and offensive comparisons do not satisfy the high legal threshold for a “true threat.” Contreras wrote that Streever’s email was protected criticism of public officials.
Federal prosecutors had asked Streever to pre-disclose his future speech plans to the court. Contreras called that demand “pedantic.” He nevertheless declined to stop ICE’s broader internal investigation into Streever’s original email after accepting statements from the agency’s Office of Professional Responsibility that the case had been closed.
DHS and ICE representatives defended the agents’ conduct, saying officials must investigate possible security threats against personnel and pointing to an escalation in hostility toward federal officers. The judge remained skeptical of the agency’s warning process.
Court documents and local reports indicate that the practice reached another case involving Paigelynne Gonyea. The same two ICE agents reportedly delivered a nearly identical warning notice to Gonyea while she was working at a polling station during a New York primary election in the Syracuse area.
Gonyea later created a crowdfunding campaign to obtain legal representation and raised more than $11,800. In Streever’s case, Contreras ordered the government to provide official physical documentation confirming that the inquiry had formally ended, citing conflicting online assertions from the agency.
