Federal crackdown on protests raises 1st Amendment concerns
It's prompted the deployment of military personnel to augment law enforcement in L.A., something Gov. Gavin Newsom and other local leaders say is an unconstitutional use of power by federal officials.
But the use of the military isn't the only alleged violation of the Constitution to emerge from this crackdown.
Free-speech advocates have noted that some actions by law enforcement aren't targeting those suspected of being in the country illegally. Instead, they're taking aim at those who stand with immigrants and against federal law enforcement, which they characterize as violations of the First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful protest.
Perhaps the most prominent example over the weekend was the arrest of David Huerta, president of the California branch of the Service Employees International Union, who faces a felony charge of conspiracy to impede an officer after a protest on Friday.
But the alleged infringement upon First Amendment rights in Southern California dates back farther than just this weekend.
In a report about Stephen Miller, a top White House advisor, pressuring federal law enforcement to deport more people, the Wall Street Journal listed a May 1 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid on a home in Irvine as an example of established rules and best practices being thrown out.
That day, ICE was looking for Michael Chang, who'd allegedly put up fliers identifying ICE officers in the area.
Even though Chang had moved to New York the month before, his parents' Turtle Rock home was raided while they slept by ICE agents who arrived in 'a phalanx of military vehicles.'
Federal officials say Chang's fliers were an act of 'doxxing,' or publicizing personal information often with malicious intent.
A Department of Homeland Security official responded to KTLA's request for an interview with an agency representative with the following statement:
'Homeland Security Investigations & U.S. Secret Service served a criminal search warrant in an upscale Irvine neighborhood, targeting the suspect they believe was responsible for posting fliers w/ the names, photos, phone numbers, & locations of ICE agents in Southern California in February.'
However, Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said identifying law enforcement officers is not a crime unless there's a call for violence or harm.
'In this case, from what we know about what was on the flier, there was nothing that amounted to a threat,' Terr told KTLA. 'There's no evidence of a threat or intent to harm anybody, just the dissemination of information coupled with political criticism.'
In the weeks since that Irvine raid, federal officials have kept mum, even as FIRE requested more detailed information, Terr said.
U.S. Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine) released a statement last month saying his office also sought more information, but if they received any updates, they haven't been disclosed. Min's office did not return a request for more information prior to publication.
Further complicating the issue, President Donald Trump and his so-called 'border czar' Tom Homan have threatened political opponents and protesters with criminal prosecution, which they say could be necessary to protect the safety of officers.
But it's not just officers' safety that seems to be Trump's concern. He's said that anyone who protests the military parade on Saturday — which is also Trump's birthday — will be met with 'very heavy force.'
'If there's any protester that wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' Trump said, as reported by NBC News. 'I haven't even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.'
Terr said that notion doesn't align with the Bill of Rights.
'That's concerning because people who are peacefully protesting shouldn't be met with any level of government force … It's very important for the government and for law enforcement to understand what the First Amendment does and doesn't protect and to let that guide their actions.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dean Cain fires back at John Leguizamo's attack, Hollywood backlash as former 'Superman' star joins ICE
Actor Dean Cain says he's unfazed by the wave of backlash over his decision to join U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "I'm not worried about Hollywood attacking me," said Cain on the "Brian Kilmeade Show" Thursday. "They can attack all they want to." The 59-year-old, best known for playing Superman, is set to be sworn in as an agent next week, building on his current role as a deputy sheriff in Virginia. The announcement has drawn criticism from some in the entertainment industry, including actor John Leguizamo, who took to Instagram to blast Cain's decision. "What kind of loser volunteers to be an ICE officer? What a moron. Dean Cain, your pronouns are has/been," Leguizamo said in the clip. Cain said he was saddened to hear Leguizamo's comments, but that he remained committed to taking the oath. Dean Cain Fires Back After John Oliver Insults, Ice Criticism Read On The Fox News App "I like John Leguizamo so that's a little bit disappointing," said Cain of the Colombian-born actor's insults. However, he argued that many Hispanics do support ICE's mission of securing the borders and helping the legal immigration system. "The most vehement defenders of our ICE agents and our immigration enforcement are people who are legal immigrants. Legal immigrants really, really pay attention and legal immigrants don't like people jumping in front of the line." Over 100K Americans Rush To Join Trump's Massive Ice Hiring Spree Nationwide, Dhs Says Cain's decision to join comes as the Department of Homeland Security removes the age cap for ICE positions to recruit 10,000 agents. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has said they've received tens of thousands of applications already. Cain says a recent surge in anti-ICE rhetoric and violence spurred his decision after the age cap was removed. DHS has announced that ICE officials faced an 830% increase in assaults between January and July of this year, compared to the same period in 2024. "Why are we attacking our ICE agents?" he questioned. "This is insane. Why are we trying to vilify them? Why are congressmen and women trying to vilify our law enforcement, federal law enforcement agents who are just trying to save Americans?" The actor added that despite Hollywood's pushback to his choice, the criticism won't deter him. "Everybody attacking you, attacking you, attacking you so you won't do it," he said. "And it's a way to keep you from doing it, keep [you] from standing up."Original article source: Dean Cain fires back at John Leguizamo's attack, Hollywood backlash as former 'Superman' star joins ICE
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
NY Dems aim to de-mask ICE agents to scare them off their raids — NOT to protect the public
Supporters claim a bill introduced by Democratic state lawmakers last month banning ICE agents and police from wearing masks during raids will ensure safety and prevent authoritarianism. One backer, Sen. Patricia Fahy, fumes that ICE is 'operating like masked militias' and 'paramilitary secret police' and so must be reined in. Nonsense: The awkwardly and misleadingly named Mandating End to Lawless Tactics Act is actually little more than an attempt to thwart immigration enforcement by making ICE agents fear for their personal safety. It joins similar efforts in other states and in Congress to 'unmask ICE.' In the words of GOP Sen. George Borrello, 'This bill is driven by ideology, not a genuine concern for public safety.' The Left's hypocrisy on this issue is staggering. Progressives — including many of the MELT Act's supporters in the Legislature — have opposed mask bans for criminal suspects and rioters, such as Nassau County's common-sense ban, which has exceptions for law enforcement. Yet for all their sympathy for those involved with the criminal-justice system, they have no qualms about painting cops as criminals and subjecting them to mask bans. If these lawmakers truly cared about public safety, they'd go after the rioters and real criminals who've routinely hidden their identities to evade accountability following the 2020 George Floyd unrest and Oct. 7 demonstrations. ICE and other law enforcement don't mask up because they have machinations of becoming a 'paramilitary secret police.' They do so to keep themselves and their families safe from multinational gangs such as Tren de Aragua. Facial-recognition technology, now rapidly improving due to AI, gives anyone — including nefarious actors like Antifa or cartel members — the ability to reverse image search the unmasked face of an ICE agent. They can then obtain and post their names, addresses and information about their relatives to social media. While the Justice Department can prosecute those responsible for such doxxing, it is nonetheless a frequent threat to agents and loved ones. Addresses of hotels where agents stay during operations are routinely spread on social media so that protesters can harass them. Agitators are so well-organized that an app was created to report and rush to ICE raid locations, as seen in Los Angeles riots this year. The Department of Homeland Security has reported an 830% increase in assaults on ICE personnel this year, attributed to an increase in doxxing and rhetoric against agents. Worse still, even if the MELT Act passes, its effects would be largely symbolic. Lawmakers like Fahy clearly don't understand federalism. Because the Constitution gives federal law precedence, any federal regulation would immediately supersede the MELT Act if passed, rendering it largely symbolic. Additionally, federal agents are immune from state criminal prosecution when acting within the scope of their authority. The MELT Act would also require that all law enforcement agents display their names or badge numbers on their uniforms, hamstringing the plainclothes units of local New York police departments, which now must only provide this information verbally. Some of the bill's supporters mention a more realistic point that masking without wearing identification might allow for easier impersonation of ICE officers. They might also argue that a lack of masking deters possible police misconduct, despite the widespread use of body cameras. Those are valid concerns. But there are ways to protect the public even with masked law enforcement. Public-education campaigns should remind residents that ICE agents and other law enforcement are legally required to identify themselves as police as soon as it is practicable and safe to do so. New Yorkers under arrest should keep in mind their constitutional protections, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Masked or not, imposters can still pose as ICE or any other law-enforcement officers. Requiring names or badge numbers does nothing if there's no reliable way to immediately verify the person's legitimacy. The answer isn't a largely symbolic law to neuter real agents; it's to strengthen identification through local cooperation. The only way to fully reassure New Yorkers is cooperation between local police and ICE, whether via collaborative task forces, such as through the federal 287(g) program already adopted by several counties, or by having nearby officers accompany raids to keep public order, which would help quickly debunk any imposters. This type of public partnership would not be a political statement about immigration, rather a commonsense way to put the public at ease and ensure all involved in raids are safe. The MELT Act is symbolic theater that punishes law enforcement while doing nothing to realistically stop imposters. New Yorkers would be safer if lawmakers scrapped this bill and instead fostered real cooperation between local police and ICE to deter fraud and protect both the public and the agents doing dangerous work. Paul Dreyer is a cities policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.
