This is an interesting case to watch as it has many implications. Four Mainers sued the Department of Homeland Security for collecting the names of people who film immigration agents. The government's response is to ask a federal judge for the names of everyone in their group chats.
The chats are neighborhood Signal groups, formed in January 2026 as DHS surged agents into Maine for Operation Catch of the Day. Members allege they used them to pass word of where ICE was working so people could go and watch. Elinor Hilton, Colleen Fagan, Polyxenia Pantos and Carlyn Williams are suing on behalf of everyone in the state whose information was taken for doing that.
Hilton filmed agents in a Home Depot parking lot on January 21. "Just so you know, for a warning, we're putting you into a watch list," one told her. Two days later, agents told Fagan, filming elsewhere near Portland, that she was going into "a nice little database."
The complaint alleges a "clear policy and practice to chill the exercise of protected activity," under which agents "identify and collect biometric and other personal information about the individuals witnessing and documenting agents' conduct, often by scanning their faces or license plates," and that information "is then stored in government databases or on watchlists that subject the observers to additional scrutiny and harm." DHS says the case is meritless and "based on the lie that there is a database of 'domestic terrorists' run by DHS."
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
In discovery, the government asked for the chats. The plaintiffs withheld roughly 80 documents and redacted more than half of the roughly 165 they produced, asserting First Amendment privilege over who was in the groups and what was said. Their brief says members "fear retribution should information about those chats be disclosed to the government," and "may not have joined or actively participated in the groups if they had understood the government would learn about their participation."
Three members swore declarations under Doe names.
The government's August 11 opposition is a strong filing. The plaintiffs, it says, "have refused to produce a third of their responsive documents, heavily redacted over half the documents they produced, and instructed witnesses not to answer questions about the activities they have placed at issue in this litigation." Having sued, they now "seek to assert privilege to prevent the government examining basic facts." Protest is public: "any protest activity would be public." And the legal test requires "objective and articulable facts" of chilling, not "broad allegations or subjective fears" — which, the government says, is all the declarations offer. It notes a protective order is already in place that would keep the names from public view.
It wants the material to test whether the alleged policy exists, to contest class certification, to challenge the claim of ongoing injury, and to assess whether officers acted reasonably in running plates and investigating people who were following them. A DHS spokesperson said officers face "coordinated campaigns of violence" and that "The First Amendment does not prevent routine discovery into chats that are used to impede and harm federal law enforcement."
The protective order is the tell. It keeps the names from the public. It does not keep them from the agency the case is about, and that agency is the thing the members say they are afraid of. The plaintiffs' brief makes exactly that point: confidentiality cannot cure compelled disclosure to the government when the government is what people fear.
"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, told WIRED.
This case exists to establish what happens to a name once DHS has it. That question is unresolved, and the government is asking for every other name in the chats while it stands open. How many that is, nobody outside the groups knows. Judge John Woodcock has not ruled.
