Three national labor unions, the American Federation of Teachers, the Communications Workers of America, and the United Auto Workers, have joined forces under the representation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to sue the Trump administration.
They argue that a government-run social media monitoring program violates the First Amendment rights of visa holders in the United States.
Filed in federal court in New York, the lawsuit demands that the administration halt what it calls “viewpoint-based investigation and surveillance” and erase all records collected through the initiative.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
The plaintiffs say the policy targets lawful residents and visitors based on their online opinions, punishing dissent and discouraging political speech.
The case stems from directives introduced earlier this year. President Donald Trump’s January executive order called for closer scrutiny of noncitizens who “bear hostile attitudes” or pose “threats to our national security.”
The Department of Homeland Security later confirmed that officials were reviewing social media posts to identify individuals expressing antisemitic or anti-American views.
EFF and the unions argue that the program’s reach extends far beyond violent or extremist speech.
The unions allege their members now hesitate to express opinions online, fearing immigration penalties for statements the government may find objectionable.
Lisa Femia, a staff attorney with EFF, said the administration’s use of artificial intelligence heightens concerns about free expression. “They’re deploying a variety of automated and AI tools to scan and review speech online, at a mass scale that wouldn’t be possible with human review alone,” she explained.
“This sweeps in a lot of speech. A lot of this is core political speech that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.”
More: US Visa Applicants’ Online Speech Surveillance Puts US Citizens’ Speech and Data at Risk
The complaint describes the surveillance as a joint effort between the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security designed to “detect disfavored viewpoints” and “coerce silence.”
It argues that the program violates both the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets limits on how federal agencies operate.
State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the policy, saying, “The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that aliens do not have the same First Amendment rights as American citizens.
“The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country, commit acts of anti-American, pro-terrorist, and antisemitic hate, or incite violence. We will continue to revoke the visas of those who put the safety of our citizens at risk.”
***
Several court rulings over the past century have indicated that the First Amendment restrains the federal government from imposing any burden on free speech, and so protections are not limited to US citizens but also extend to foreign nationals who are physically present in the country.
One of the earliest and most influential cases is Bridges v. Wixon (1945). In that case, the Supreme Court overturned the deportation of an Australian-born labor activist accused of communist sympathies.
The Court ruled that the government could not remove a noncitizen for engaging in speech or association protected by the First Amendment, emphasizing that constitutional guarantees apply to “all persons within the territory of the United States,” not only to citizens.
Subsequent cases reinforced that principle. In Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding (1953), the Court held that a lawful permanent resident returning from a brief trip abroad retained constitutional protections, including due process and free expression rights.
The justices made clear that once an individual is inside US borders under lawful status, the government cannot arbitrarily strip away their constitutional safeguards.
Later, in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Court addressed whether the government could deny entry to a foreign scholar invited to speak at American universities because of his political views.
While the Court ultimately upheld the denial on narrow grounds of executive discretion over entry, it did not dispute that noncitizens already inside the country enjoy First Amendment protections.
The decision also reaffirmed that US citizens have a constitutional interest in hearing and engaging with foreign speakers.
Regardless of the issue of free speech, there’s a privacy element to such mass speech scanning that was also used by the Biden administration. His administration quietly preserved much of the same social media monitoring infrastructure that had been introduced during the previous years.
In many ways, Biden expanded it, not for immigration enforcement but his own agendas.
The lawsuit frames the case as a major test of how far federal agencies can go in scanning and analyzing online speech.
