Share and Follow
President Donald Trump arrives to speak during a roundtable on criminal cartels in the State Dining Room of the White House, Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025, in Washington, as then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem watch (AP Photo/Evan Vucci).
A federal court has determined that the Trump administration infringed upon the First Amendment by urging tech companies to expunge apps and groups criticizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
According to a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Jorge Luis Alonso, appointed by Barack Obama, in October 2025, federal agents compelled Apple to remove the “Eyes Up” app. This application enabled users to share videos and details about ICE’s activities, as outlined in the eight-page memorandum opinion released on Thursday by the Chicago-based court.
In a parallel action the same month, Facebook was also pressured to take down the “ICE Sightings – Chicagoland” group. This online community allowed individuals to post similar content about ICE operations, the court noted.
Earlier this year, in February, the app developers and Facebook group creators initiated a 31-page lawsuit. Their legal action claims two distinct breaches of the First Amendment, allegedly orchestrated by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
The lawsuit argues that such actions are unconstitutional, emphasizing, “The First Amendment prohibits the government from coercing companies to censor protected speech. Without this Court’s intervention, this unconstitutional coercion will continue.”
Now, the court has agreed with the plaintiffs and granted a preliminary injunction – the terms of which will be set later this month.
The court’s order notes how the controversy began when “social media influencer Laura Loomer posted a link to the Facebook group and tagged Pamela Bondi and Kristi Noem” on Oct. 12, 2025.
Two days later, the group was gone.
The opinion and order, explains, at length:
On October 14, Bondi posted: “Today following outreach from [the DOJ], Facebook removed a large group that was being used to dox and target [ICE] agents in Chicago.” Also on October 14, Defendant Noem posted: “Today, thanks to [the DOJ], Facebook removed a large page being used to dox and threaten our ICE agents in Chicago.” … When asked by the media if DOJ had requested removal of the group, a Facebook spokesperson declined to comment and pointed to Bondi’s social media post.
The court goes on to suggest the group was not removed due to any actual violation of Facebook’s terms of service.
“Prior to October 14, out of thousands of posts and tens of thousands of comments made in the Chicagoland Facebook group, Facebook’s moderators found and removed only five posts and comments that purportedly violated Facebook’s guidelines,” the order explains. “Facebook’s policies do not call for disabling groups if just a few members post prohibited conduct.”
The app in question was removed by Apple as part of a mass removal action that targeted “several apps that shared information regarding ICE activity,” the judge notes. And, in this instance, the government’s conduct was even more explicit.
“Apple informed [the app’s creators] that Apple had removed Eyes Up from the App Store after receiving ‘information’ from ‘law enforcement’ that the app violated Apple’s guidelines,” Alonso writes – again doubting the excuse. “But Apple had previously and independently reviewed Eyes Up in August 2025. During that previous review, Eyes Up was already available on its website, and Apple had knowledge of the purpose of Eyes Up, of actual videos available on it, and how it worked.”
In the opinion’s analysis section, the judge makes quick work of the constitutional issues at stake in the lawsuit.
“The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that their injuries are likely traceable to government-coerced enforcement,” the order reads. “They reached out to Facebook and Apple and demanded, rather than requested, that Facebook and Apple censor Plaintiff’s speech.”
Alonso explains, at length:
First, Facebook had previously reviewed the Chicagoland group, and Apple had previously reviewed Eyes Up. In both cases, Facebook and Apple had determined that the content met their requirements. Second, Facebook and Apple changed their positions and removed the content immediately after Defendants contacted them about it. And third, Defendants made public statements taking credit for the fact that Facebook and Apple had removed the content.
“Defendants’ actions can be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action against Facebook and Apple in order to suppress Plaintiffs’ speech,” the judge goes on. “Plaintiffs’ speech remains suppressed—the Chicagoland Facebook group is still disabled and Eyes Up is still unavailable on the App Store.”
The court concludes that the Trump administration’s coercion is having “continuing, present adverse effects” on the plaintiffs’ speech.
And, to that end, Alonso says the “requested injunction to stop Defendant’s coercion thus redresses Plaintiff’s injuries because it will allow Facebook and Apple to reach their own decisions regarding Plaintiff’s speech rather than be pressured by Defendants.”