US citizen sues ICE, saying agents tried to intimidate him over an angry email
David Streever's suit argues that home visits and a warning notice punished protected political speech, not a genuine threat
ROCHESTER, United States (MNTV) — A U.S. citizen has sued Immigration and Customs Enforcement, alleging agents used the machinery of federal law enforcement to punish him for a furious email criticizing an ICE official — a case that tests where threat assessment ends and retaliation against protected speech begins.
David Streever filed suit after ICE officers came to his Rochester, New York, home in June, while he was traveling in Finland, and handed his wife a notice warning that an email he had sent months earlier was being treated as a threat. His attorneys call the visit an unconstitutional attempt to chill criticism of the government.
Streever sent the message in January to Todd Lyons, then ICE’s acting director, after federal agents fatally shot Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.
The email was blunt and confrontational — it invoked Nazi Germany and told Lyons he bore moral responsibility for the killings and would face consequences for his decisions.
His lawyers, from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argue that this is exactly the kind of angry political condemnation the First Amendment protects, and that officials who wield lethal authority must tolerate even harsh, emotional criticism.
Adam Steinbaugh, one of Streever’s attorneys, said the message was political speech, not a plan to harm anyone, and that public accountability collapses if citizens can be visited at home for saying so.
The suit stresses that intimidation does not require an arrest: home visits, repeated contact attempts, and formal warnings can deter people from speaking out even when no charge is ever filed. Streever’s lawyers say agents also tried to reach him at a New York City hotel after he returned, an encounter hotel staff headed off.
ICE declined to comment, citing an ongoing investigation. The Department of Homeland Security denied suppressing speech and said threats against its officers are taken seriously.
The case turns on a question with reach well beyond one email: whether the government can convert offensive political speech into a law-enforcement matter, and whether doing so becomes unconstitutional retaliation even without a prosecution.
We must take charge of our narrative. Research indicates that 92% of their Muslim coverage is negative. Help us change that.
Have Your Say!
Have you been affected by the issues raised in this story? Please share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@soundvision.com.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a Muslim Network TV’s representative. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
Tweet: @MuslimNetworkTV
