John Doe v. Markwayne Mullin

The ACLU Foundation of Northern California and the ACLU of the District of Columbia sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over its unlawful attempt to obtain from Google the personal and location information of a Canadian citizen who has posted content critical of the Trump administration online.

This case is among a large number of instances of social media critics who have been targeted by DHS. Since the start of the second Trump administration, social media platforms have received hundreds of similar government demands for information designed to chill speech the government doesn’t like. Our lawsuit asks the court to rule that DHS is exceeding its legal authority by demanding vast swaths of personal information about the plaintiff, including his name, where he lives, extensive information about his physical movements, and detailed records about the websites he visits and the people he communicates with online.

On his social media accounts, the plaintiff, John Doe, who uses a pseudonym to protect his privacy and family, regularly posts strongly worded criticisms of President Trump and his policies. In February, DHS issued an administrative demand to Google to release his personal information shortly after he posted online criticism of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis.

The attempt to force Google to turn over information about Mr. Doe far exceeds DHS’s legal authority, which the agency issued without any involvement from a court, citing a customs enforcement law. Mr. Doe, a Canadian citizen who resides in Canada, has not entered the U.S. since 2015.

The ACLU of Northern California, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the ACLU national organization have filed three other cases challenging similar abuses, but DHS withdrew those subpoenas before a judge could rule on their legality.

This lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, goes a step further than previous challenges. It asks the court to not only invalidate this summons, but also make clear that the government may not use its customs enforcement authority to attempt to identify and intimidate its critics.