Free speech is at the heart of what it means to be an American. When the federal government tries to limit speech or retaliate against individuals who are lawfully making their voices heard, it sets a dangerous precedent.
Actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal law enforcement agents in Minneapolis, Minnesota that seek to quash dissent and retaliate against individuals for exercising these rights threaten the very foundation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Campaign Legal Center, alongside our co-counsel the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP), submitted a brief in Tincher v. Noem on behalf of over three dozen former career civil servants in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division calling on the courts to hold federal law enforcement accountable for First Amendment violations.
This brief supports six plaintiffs in Minnesota — suing on behalf of all constitutional observers and protestors in the Twin Cities — who claim their constitutional rights were violated when ICE and other federal agents retaliated against them for peacefully observing and recording law enforcement activity.
The plaintiffs in this case were engaged in conduct that lies at the heart of the First Amendment — documenting government officials performing their duties — when federal agents responded with force, intimidation and arrests.
The 39 former DOJ officials joining this brief bring deep, nonpartisan expertise. Many served in the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division under both Republican and Democratic administrations. This section of the DOJ is responsible for identifying and eliminating patterns or practices of illegal conduct by law enforcement agencies, including violations of the First Amendment rights of protesters and observers.
Many of these former DOJ officials have professional experience investigating unconstitutional policing across the country, giving them unique insight into the standards federal courts should apply. Others made important contributions to findings of unconstitutional policing.
CLC’s brief highlights past DOJ investigations that found local law enforcement agencies to have engaged in unconstitutional activity and asks the court to apply the same constitutional standards to federal law enforcement agents that DOJ has applied to local law enforcement in similar situations.
Our brief makes clear that federal agents do not have the authority to undermine the First Amendment. The court should enforce the same constitutional standards against federal law enforcement that DOJ, including through investigations by many of the career civil servants who filed this brief, have routinely enforced against local law enforcement.
Federal law enforcement cannot operate outside the bounds of the Constitution. Courts must ensure that federal agencies are held to the same standards as every other law enforcement agency.
Allowing federal agents to act without constitutional restraint would set a dangerous precedent — one that suggests Americans’ rights to peaceful protest and assembly are conditional rather than fundamental.
This case reflects a broader truth at the heart of Campaign Legal Center’s work: The rule of law is only meaningful when it applies equally to everyone, including those who wield power in our government. We are continuing our long-standing commitment to ensuring that constitutional protections are not theoretical ideals but enforceable guarantees. In courtrooms across the country, Campaign Legal Center remains committed to protecting the rule of law. Join us.
