Federal Government Faces Lawsuit Over Intimidation of Immigration Observers

Observing Immigration Officers: Risks and Challenges

In Minneapolis, Michael Khalili spent months documenting the activities of federal immigration officers. These officers had surged into his city, causing widespread scrutiny. Khalili is driven by the belief that the public must be aware of federal actions. He points to the case of fellow observer Alex Pretti, who was shot by immigration officers. The Trump administration claimed Pretti was a domestic terrorist, but bystander videos contradicted such allegations.

Khalili emphasizes the importance of public observation in dismantling government falsehoods. His efforts, however, are tempered by personal risks and pressure. Tensions emerged within his family after repeated encounters with federal officers. These incidents have made Khalili cautious, as federal agents have taken steps such as photographing his vehicle and warning him to stop following ICE vehicles. A significant consequence was the temporary revocation of his Global Entry status, which was restored after media intervention.

Further complications arose when activists faced criminal charges, including conspiracy to impede officers. One charge mirrored Khalili’s actions, increasing his family’s concerns that federal agents might arrest him at home. Consequently, Khalili stopped observing ICE.

Legal Actions and Their Implications

Khalili remains committed to holding the federal government accountable. He is now a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Common Cause, a nonprofit focused on protecting First Amendment rights. This lawsuit targets agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, accusing them of violations against observers.

This legal action is notable for its broad scope and national implications. It seeks to prevent federal agencies from intimidating observers. Common Cause’s vice president for litigation, Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, emphasizes the importance of public participation in democracy and argues that criminalizing peaceful observation threatens that mission.

The lawsuit references numerous instances of intimidation faced by observers across the country. In places like Minnesota and Maryland, observers were subjected to harassment tactics such as being photographed, followed, or reported to police.

ICE agents have told local police to ban observers from public areas, using facial recognition to identify them. This raises significant privacy concerns.

Policy and Activism

Danielle Lang from the Campaign Legal Center highlights a systematic policy of retaliation against observers, driven by directives from the Trump administration. These include linking immigration enforcement obstruction to domestic terrorism—a justification for spying on activists.

The repeal of certain protections has facilitated the use of facial recognition and license plate tracking. The dismantling of the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties further exacerbates these issues.

The lawsuit argues that federal retaliation includes threats, data collection for intimidation, and civil penalties. Instances of revoked Global Entry status serve as examples.

Khalili’s participation in the lawsuit aims to protect fellow observers from similar harassment. His experiences, documented in legal filings, shed light on the broader plight facing observers.

Action taken against Khalili included 55 law enforcement queries since March 2026—a stark increase from prior instances. A March email informed him of his Global Entry status being revoked following ICE officers confronting him.

Hope for Change

Khalili remains concerned about being on a federal list, evidenced by questioning during his return from Ireland. He hopes that the lawsuit leads to policy changes and offers protections for peaceful observers.

The past challenges in Minneapolis underscore the necessity of reform, ensuring individuals can monitor actions without fear. Khalili wants the freedom to observe and hopes broader changes will render observation unnecessary.