Maine ICE observers added to DHS database, unsealed court records say

Maine Residents Sue DHS Over Immigration‑Agency Database Entry, Claim First‑Amendment Violation

A federal immigration agent’s decision to add eight Maine residents to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Investigative Case Management (ICM) database has led to a lawsuit filed by the men and women who were observed filming U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities in the state. The lawsuit alleges that the agency’s actions violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

Who and What

The lawsuit names Caryln Williams and her partner Polyxenia Pantos, along with two additional Maine residents, as the plaintiffs. Their attorneys—JoAnna Suriani of the nonprofit Protect Democracy—accuse the agency of threatening to place observers in a “domestic terrorism” watch‑list and of using the ICM database to record and potentially punish individuals who simply filmed or documented federal immigration enforcement.

A federal immigration agent, identified in court documents as “J.C.” and later named by DHS as “Mr. Coleman,” added the eight Maine residents to the ICM system in January. The agent told the plaintiffs that he had “believed posted potential threats to law enforcement” after the car of the plaintiffs’ spouse was seen at a location where several people were recording ICE agents on January 20.

The agent also called Williams hours later, identifying himself as a DHS employee and telling her not to “do anything like that” in the future, warning that people who record ICE could be added to a domestic‑terrorism database. According to the filings, he described Williams in a deposition as an “aggressive woman (who) interjected herself into an arrest,” even though she was not physically present in the vehicle that day.

Legal Motions and Court Proceedings

The plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent further retaliation. They also request that Williams’ classification in the ICM database be altered to avoid automatic detentions or second inspections at U.S. borders.

DHS, in a motion to dismiss, maintains that the agent added the individuals because he believed they posed potential threats. The department denies any wrongdoing and rejects the existence of a domestic‑terrorism database. A DHS spokesperson declined to comment on the case but reiterated that the agency does not run such a database.

Judge John Woodcock denied the plaintiffs’ earlier request for a temporary restraining order in March, citing insufficient evidence for an emergency relief. A hearing on the current motion for a preliminary injunction has not yet been scheduled.

Allegations of Harassment

In addition to the database issue, the plaintiffs claim that DHS agents have driven by the homes of those who film ICE, “to show them that we knew who they were” and to discourage further observation. The plaintiffs argue that these actions create a chilling effect on lawful First‑Amendment activity.

Attorney Suriani said, “Once you are in that database, or a database like it … the reach of where that data goes, including who has access to it, and what it can be used for in the future, is, in my opinion, very chilling.” She added that “the government is treating people who exercise their First Amendment rights and seek to hold it accountable as criminal suspects.”

DHS’s Position

DHS officials assert that they have a policy to protect observers and protesters engaged in First‑Amendment activities, and that agents receive training in this regard. They also point to an earlier investigation in March, which identified only a few agents in Maine who allegedly violated DHS policy by discussing a domestic‑terrorism database with observers. No agents have been disciplined according to the plaintiffs’ filings.

The ICM Database

The ICM database is a DHS system managed by Palantir, a software company. DHS has used Palantir’s platform for years to track investigations and cases. A Palantir spokesperson declined to comment on the current lawsuit.

Next Steps

Both sides remain in the early stages of litigation. The plaintiffs are awaiting a court decision on their request for a preliminary injunction, while DHS seeks to have the case dismissed. The outcome will clarify whether federal immigration agents can add civil observers to a government database and whether such actions infringe upon constitutional rights.