David Streever, a Rochester resident, filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, alleging his First Amendment rights were violated. The lawsuit follows incidents in June where federal agents visited his home and a hotel to serve a warning notice regarding a critical email he sent.
The January Email and Federal Response
The legal conflict stems from a three-paragraph email David Streever sent on January 26 to Todd Lyons, who was then the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to NPR. Streever wrote the message following the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizen observers by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis. In the email, which carried the subject line “What’s next,” Streever compared Lyons to a Nazi official and suggested he would be haunted by his conscience.
Five months later, on June 23, two Homeland Security Investigations agents arrived at Streever’s Rochester home. As reported by 13wham.com, the agents left a document for Streever, who was traveling in Finland at the time. The notice was titled “WARNING NOTICE” and stated, “YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW,” while requesting that he “promptly remove and/or discontinue the aforementioned behavior.”
The Mechanics of Federal Investigations
Legal Claims of Retaliation
The lawsuit, filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), argues that the government’s actions constitute unconstitutional retaliation for protected political speech.
“Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is actively threatening that freedom, tracking down and retaliating against speakers like Plaintiff David Streever because he exercised his fundamental right to criticize one of the highest-ranking law enforcement officers in the United States.”
FIRE, via NPR
Streever later encountered federal agents again after returning from his trip. When he arrived at a New York City hotel, front desk staff informed him that a federal agent had been searching for him and left a business card. The lawsuit contends that the government’s ability to track Streever to his hotel raises significant questions regarding surveillance and the extent to which federal resources are utilized to monitor citizens who voice criticism of agency leadership.
For more on this story, see Rochester’s PIC Team Adds Peer Navigators Under Daniel’s Law.
DHS Response and Broader Context
The lawsuit names Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin as a defendant. In a statement provided to reporters, the office of the Secretary denied that the agency is attempting to stifle free expression.
“Any allegation DHS and its components are attempting to ‘squash’ free speech is categorically FALSE. Anyone who assaults or threatens our law enforcement officers will face the consequences.”
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s office, via AP News
The legal filing seeks an injunction to prevent the government from taking further retaliatory actions against Streever. The incident is not isolated; reports indicate that other individuals in upstate New York have also received federal warnings in recent weeks following online criticism of ICE. Specifically, officials visited a poll worker named Paigelynne Gonyea at a voting location in June regarding her social media activity.
Streever’s Statement and Future Implications
Streever has expressed shock at the intensity of the government’s response to his communication.
“Like many Americans, I was deeply upset after the shootings in Minnesota and I felt compelled to do something. Writing an email to the head of ICE seemed like the least I could do to express my sense of outrage. I never dreamed it would lead to a knock on my door by federal officers or descending on my hotel in the dark of night.”
David Streever, via NPR
The foundation behind the lawsuit is seeking to prohibit the agency from taking any further actions to “chill free expression protected by the First Amendment.” The outcome of the litigation could potentially set a precedent for how federal agencies handle communications from the public that contain harsh criticism or controversial political rhetoric, influencing future agency policies on what constitutes a reportable threat versus protected speech.
Find more reporting in our News section.
