A federal judge blocked Facebook from giving information to DHS about Pa. activists who track ICE on social media

PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge on Friday ordered Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — not to comply with a request by the Department of Homeland Security seeking information about the operators of MontCo Community Watch, a grass-roots organization behind a pair anonymous social media accounts that tracks local ICE activity.

The order, issued late Friday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, was a quick response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Montgomery County group, in which its lawyers said DHS had taken unlawful steps to try to unmask the people behind it.

In the lawsuit, filed in federal court in California this week, lawyers for the group said DHS’ actions amount to a clear First Amendment violation, and that the group’s operators and associates are being targeted by the federal government “for doing nothing more than exercising their rights to free speech and free association.”

Kang, the judge, did not say in his order whether he endorsed that position. But he said Meta should not produce any documents or information in response to DHS’ request without a court order while the case proceeds before him.

The effort by DHS began last month, the lawsuit said, when the agency sent two administrative summonses to Meta seeking usernames, phone numbers, IP addresses, and other identifying information for those with connections to the group’s pages. The stated purpose of the summonses, the lawsuit said, was for DHS to investigate potential customs violations involving merchandise sales.

But the group’s pages on Facebook and Instagram do not offer anything for sale, the lawsuit said, and even if they did, DHS’ requests sought information “wildly outside the scope” of such an investigation.

The group’s members are “in immediate danger of having their personal information shared with DHS, and therefore in danger of being targeted for harassment, detention, and persecution,” the lawsuit said. It asked a federal judge to quash the summonses and prevent Meta from turning over the information.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in California’s northern district court, where Meta is headquartered.

DHS did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

Stephen Loney, a supervising attorney with the ACLU of Pennsylvania and one of the lawyers handling the case, called the situation “a pretty appalling abuse of process, and abuse of the government’s power against the little guy, who is just trying to protect their community and let people know what’s going on.”

Loney said Meta could have pushed back against the government’s request by declining to comply without a court order. Instead, it shifted the onus to its account-holders, leaving it to them to figure out the situation and file complex court motions.

The implication is the government could be using its power against a wider swath of people or organizations — and the tech companies may be providing little to no resistance.

“Only God, DHS and Meta know how many of these nonpublic, anonymous posters are having their information revealed to the government,” Loney said. “We’re up against all the resources of the federal government, and all the resources of Meta.”

The suit comes as tech companies in recent weeks have granted other requests by President Donald Trump’s administration to take down or limit content regarding ICE operations.

Earlier this week Meta agreed to shut down a Facebook page that allowed users to share information about ICE agents in Chicago. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the page was putting agents at risk in the field.

Several weeks before that, Apple and Google agreed to grant another request from Bondi’s Justice Department to remove apps that allowed users to track and share the locations of ICE agents across the country.

In the case of MontCo Community Watch, the lawsuit said that on Sept. 11, DHS sent two summonses to Meta asking for names, zip codes, email addresses, and other information of users who accessed the group’s Facebook or Instagram pages.

The group of volunteers is part of a growing on-the-ground resistance network to address the increase in ICE activity across the Philadelphia region. Immigration advocates travel local highways and interstates, looking for ICE, and often share tips, information, and resources online.

Legal filings on behalf of Montco Community Watch say local residents see ICE agents “every day,” and that the agency has “carried out a series of well-documented arrests and abusive searches, detentions and arrests.”

The court filing cites “the most terrifying operation” as the July 16 raid on the Super Gigante food market in West Norriton, where agents detained at least 14 people on immigration violations.

The agents, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in September, were trailed to the market by cars carrying members of the Montgomery County Watch rapid-response team. Those activists work to find and follow Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, aiming to record agents’ activities, to alert people to protest at the scenes of arrests, and, at times, to loudly confront the officers.

That morning, the group had discovered ICE agents and cars gathering in the parking lot outside the Plymouth Meeting Regal Cinema movie theater. The two groups arrived nearly simultaneously.

The summonses against MontCo Community Watch cited a law known as U.S. Code 1509, which allows authorities to investigate customs violations. But the documents provided no specifics about what wrongdoing the group may have engaged in — or how the information DHS sought might contribute to its investigation.

The group’s lawyers said in the suit that they “are not engaged in commerce, nor are they subject to monetary sanctions or liabilities.” And they said the summonses “demand information clearly beyond what federal law permits.”

In addition, the suit said no one from MontCo Community Watch learned of the summons until Oct. 3, when Meta sent an email saying it planned to provide DHS the requested information within 10 days unless the group had challenged the summonses in court.