Man Investigated by ICE After Sending Email Sues: First Amendment Analysis

A New York man sued federal immigration officials on July 6, arguing they violated his First Amendment rights when agents showed up at his home in response to an email he had sent to the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

According to the lawsuit, David Streever sent an email to then-Acting Director of ICE Todd Lyons in January 2026 after immigration enforcement officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis.

The email read:

“You are a monstrous human being and will go down in history as America's Reinhard Heydrich, the butcher.

“The way you are protecting the obvious execution in Minnesota, even as we see the videos, will lead to your downfall. Even Trump will turn on you before the end, and you will be a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame at your own pathetic weakness.

“You will never know peace. You will seek to lose yourself, to escape the burden of knowing the truth about yourself. But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth.”

Five months later, the lawsuit says, ICE agents arrived at Streever’s home while he was out of the country and told his wife that Streever may have threatened Lyons. The agents gave her a warning notice that said Streever may have violated the law. The notice directed Streever to sign the paperwork and return it to federal officials.

The day Streever returned to the United States, the lawsuit says federal agents visited the hotel in New York City that he had checked into. Around the same time, the lawsuit says, he also received two voicemails from people who said they were with “Homeland Security Investigations.”

Streever’s lawsuit, filed on his behalf by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argues the visits and warning notice violated his First Amendment free speech and petition rights.

What are Streever’s First Amendment claims?

Streever’s lawsuit claims that federal authorities 1) unconstitutionally chilled and coerced his First Amendment-protected speech and petition rights and 2) unconstitutionally retaliated against him for exercising those rights.

Central to both these claims is his argument that his email to Lyons was a form of First Amendment-protected speech and petition.

Specifically, his lawsuit argues that his email was not a threat and was, in fact, “core political speech ... that sits at the highest rung of First Amendment protection.”

Political speech is the primary type of speech that the First Amendment is intended to protect, allowing people to criticize government officials without fear of retaliation.

On the other hand, some speech is not protected, such as true threats.

Courts narrowly define true threats to protect political speech and hyperbole. To prosecute speech as a true threat, the government must show both that the statement would be reasonably understood as a threat of violence and that the speaker knew, or at least ignored a real risk, that the statement would be understood as threatening.

Streever’s lawsuit argues his email did not reach this bar, noting the often-heated nature of political debate and that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security likely didn’t see the email as a serious threat because the agency did not follow up for five months.

The First Amendment right to petition also protects people’s ability to make requests of government officials, which the lawsuit claims he did in his email.

Coerced and chilled First Amendment rights

To win his claim that the government’s actions coerced and chilled his First Amendment rights, Streever must prove his email is protected, as well as the following:

1. The government’s actions deterred him from engaging in protected speech or petition or compelled him to engage in expression he didn’t agree with.

2. The government’s actions were backed by official authority, threats of legal consequences or other pressure.

Did the government’s actions deter and/or compel his speech or petition?

The lawsuit says federal officials issued a warning to Streever that “purports to prohibit future expression,” despite having no legal basis to do so. It argues this constitutes unlawful prior restraint.

Government officials “are subjecting Streever to a systemic campaign to silence and chill protected speech through coercion,” the lawsuit said.

The suit notes that the warning notice sought to silence Streever by claiming his speech was unlawful, ordering him to cease that speech and compelling him to speak by demanding that he sign and return the warning notice to the government.

Were the government’s actions backed by official authority?

The government, the lawsuit argues, used its official authority by sending federal law enforcement agents to find Streever and including language in the warning notice that suggests he could be criminally prosecuted for continuing to speak.

Retaliation

To win his retaliation claim, Streever must prove his email was protected, as well as the following:

1. The government took adverse action against him.
2. That action was in response to his protected speech or petition.

Did the government take adverse action against him?

The lawsuit argues that the federal government took several adverse actions that would deter most people from speaking out again. That includes:

• Issuing a warning notice declaring that Streever may have violated the law, requiring him to cease his expression and asking him to sign and return the warning notice
• Sending federal agents to his home and hotel
• Issuing public statements to the media suggesting his email may be the subject of an ongoing investigation

The lawsuit says these actions harmed Streever because he would like to continue criticizing President Donald Trump’s administration but is now unsure what he is able to say.

Did the government act because of his protected speech and petition?

The lawsuit also argues that the federal government only issued its warning and investigated Streever because of his email.

The warning notice that said Streever may have violated the law specifically referenced the email that Streever sent to Lyons. It said that it was illegal to threaten a federal official and requested that Streever “promptly remove and/or discontinue the aforementioned behavior.”

What have ICE and DHS said?

Streever filed the lawsuit against top Department of Homeland Security and ICE officials as well as individual agents.

As of July 10, federal officials have not formally responded to the lawsuit in court. However, before Streever filed the lawsuit, a DHS spokesperson told NPR when the outlet asked about Streever’s case that “ICE investigates all credible threats towards its employees and officers, including threats to the ICE Director.”

After Streever filed the suit, a DHS spokesperson said in a statement that “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,” the statement said.

What’s next?

Federal officials will have the opportunity to respond to Streever’s lawsuit.

Streever is seeking a jury trial in the case. If he wins, he will ask a federal judge to declare that his email is protected petition and speech under the First Amendment and that immigration officials’ actions violated his rights. He has also asked the judge to block immigration officials from taking any further action to intimidate him or enforce the warning notice.

Katie Bernard is a rapid response writer at Freedom Forum. She can be reached at [email protected].

This article was compiled with contributions from Freedom Forum experts, including Vice President and First Amendment Expert Kevin Goldberg and First Amendment Specialist Alex Morey.