Lead: A federal class-action lawsuit filed Feb. 23, 2026 in U.S. District Court in Maine accuses the Department of Homeland Security and several subagencies of tracking and intimidating people who lawfully observe and record immigration enforcement. Plaintiffs say agents used smartphone scans of faces and license plates and, in at least one viral incident in Portland, Maine, told an observer she was now “considered a domestic terrorist.” The suit seeks to stop the collection of records, to expunge any already gathered data and to block retaliation against those exercising First Amendment rights.
Key Takeaways
- The suit was filed Feb. 23, 2026 by Protect Democracy and law firms Dunn Isaacson Rhee and Drummond Woodsum on behalf of observers including Colleen Fagan and Elinor Hilton.
- Plaintiffs allege federal agents used facial scans and license-plate capture via smartphone apps (including a Mobile Companion app) during public immigration enforcement activities.
- In a widely shared video from Portland, Maine, an agent told Fagan, “we have a nice little database” and called her a “domestic terrorist;” DHS has publicly denied operating such a database.
- The complaint cites similar reports from Minnesota, where observers said agents used surveillance to identify and follow them to their homes after tracking vehicles.
- Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief barring DHS from collecting or retaining records about lawful observers and demand expungement of any files already compiled.
- The lawsuit frames the conduct as unconstitutional retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and asks a federal judge to enjoin the practices nationwide.
Background
In recent years, heightened federal immigration operations and expanded field technology have put activists and community observers into frequent contact with enforcement personnel. Observers, researchers and local advocates have documented ICE and other DHS components at arrests, workplace actions and residential operations, arguing that civilian recording helps ensure accountability. Federal agencies, for their part, cite officer safety and the investigation of threats as reasons to monitor and document interactions in the field.
Biometric tools and mobile data applications have been integrated into routine enforcement work. Federal agents can access facial-recognition capabilities and use mobile apps that scan license plates, a change advocates say magnifies privacy and free-speech concerns. Political rhetoric and some federal guidance—such as a December memo from the state attorney general level that listed certain forms of doxing as domestic terrorism—have intensified debate about where investigation ends and intimidation begins.
Main Event
The complaint centers on an episode in Portland, Maine, in which Colleen Fagan, a social worker observing an enforcement action, recorded federal agents on her phone. Plaintiffs say an agent scanned her face and appeared to capture her vehicle’s plate; the agent then told her the agency kept “a nice little database” and called her a “domestic terrorist.” Fagan posted a video that later circulated widely online.
Another plaintiff, Elinor Hilton, alleges that agents in Portland photographed her face and license plate on Jan. 21, 2026 while she filmed an immigration action at a Home Depot. According to the complaint, an agent warned Hilton she would be placed on a domestic-terrorist watchlist and threatened a follow-up visit to her home that night; Hilton subsequently avoided staying at home and changed how and where she observes agents.
The lawsuit also compiles declarations from Minnesota observers who say agents used surveillance to trace their vehicles to their residences and warned them about alleged interference. Plaintiffs contend these actions were intended to chill or punish constitutionally protected recording and monitoring of public enforcement activity.
Analysis & Implications
If the court finds the challenged practices amount to retaliation for protected speech, the ruling could narrow agency discretion to gather identifying information about civilians at public events. Legal doctrine bars government actors from taking adverse action motivated by an individual’s exercise of First Amendment rights; the plaintiffs frame the alleged cataloging and labeling as classic retaliatory conduct.
The case also raises technical and policy questions about biometric and location-enabled tools in law enforcement: facial recognition, automated license-plate readers and smartphone companion apps can speed identification but also produce persistent digital records that, plaintiffs argue, chill witness activity. Courts will weigh asserted government interests—officer safety, investigations of threats—against the burden on public protest, monitoring and reporting.
A ruling for plaintiffs could require DHS to tighten internal policies, cease retention of certain observer records and purge files, potentially forcing revisions across component agencies and prompting new congressional oversight. Conversely, a ruling for defendants could affirm broader agency latitude to document interactions, subject to narrower limits on how that data is used for First Amendment purposes.
Comparison & Data
| Tool | Typical Capability | Policy Concern |
|---|---|---|
| Facial recognition | Match live or photo images to databases | False IDs, privacy, retention of biometric identifiers |
| Mobile license-plate scanners | Capture and link plates to locations/times | Location tracking, vehicle-home association |
| Smartphone companion apps | Capture photos, notes, geo-tags in the field | Rapid data aggregation and sharing across systems |
The table summarizes commonly discussed tools referenced in the complaint and press accounts. Plaintiffs emphasize that the combination of these capabilities makes informal cataloging of observers feasible and potentially invasive.
Reactions & Quotes
Observers and advocates framed the lawsuit as a check on overbroad surveillance. Before the filing, Fagan told reporters she felt entitled to record public operations.
“A federal agent called me a domestic terrorist just because I recorded agents operating in public in my community.”
Colleen Fagan (observer/plaintiff)
Government spokespeople have denied maintaining a database of U.S. citizens; the agency emphasized it investigates threats and refers criminal conduct to appropriate authorities.
“There is NO database of ‘domestic terrorists’ run by DHS.”
DHS spokesperson (public statement)
Legal counsel for Protect Democracy framed the suit as protective of civic oversight and civic speech.
“This lawsuit will ensure the federal government can no longer use unconstitutional surveillance tactics to silence critics and sideline observers.”
JoAnna Suriani, Protect Democracy (counsel)
Unconfirmed
- Whether a formal, centralized DHS database specifically labeled “domestic terrorists” exists is contested; defendants have publicly denied such a system, and plaintiffs allege agents at times pretended to add people to lists.
- Allegations that individual agents acted on threats to visit observers’ homes are described in the complaint but not independently verified by court findings at this stage.
Bottom Line
The lawsuit crystallizes a broader clash between surveillance-enabled enforcement practices and the constitutional protections that shield public monitoring of government actors. If plaintiffs prevail, federal policy and field practice may change substantially: agencies could be restricted from compiling or retaining records tied to lawful observation and required to purge existing files.
Regardless of outcome, the case is likely to prompt congressional oversight, agency policy reviews and sharper debate over how biometric and mobile tools are used in public enforcement. Observers, civil-liberties groups and enforcement agencies will be watching the litigation for how it balances officer safety and investigatory needs against free-speech and privacy rights.