Defending Maine communities from federal surveillance and intimidation

• February 23, 2026

Hilton v. Noem et al.

Hilton v. Noem et al.

On February 23, 2026, Protect Democracy filed a lawsuit on behalf of Maine residents against a number of DHS agencies and officials for the unconstitutional surveillance and intimidation of Americans exercising their First Amendment right to bear witness to immigration operations in their communities.

The named plaintiffs, Elinor Hilton and Colleen Fagan, are lifelong Maine residents who lawfully observed and recorded DHS operations in public and were threatened and called “domestic terrorists” as a result. They are seeking to represent a class of residents who similarly had their personal information collected via facial recognition and license plate readers and were added to a federal government database because they engaged in protected activities. The plaintiffs are also seeking a temporary restraining order, asking the court to immediately halt the federal government’s collection and cataloguing of their data and prevent future retaliatory threats and harassment against them.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Drummond Woodsum, Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP, and Protect Democracy.

[Background]

Background

As the Trump administration has expanded its mass deportation campaign to cities around the country, federal agents engaged in abusive enforcement tactics have been met by widespread protests and other forms of dissent — including community members who observe and record these tactics in order to document what is happening and ensure accountability. In response, federal agents are using sophisticated surveillance technology to collect and track biometric and other personal information about observers, adding them to law enforcement databases, and in some cases, accusing observers of being “domestic terrorists” and otherwise harassing them.

The intimidation of Mainers is part of a national playbook also deployed in cities like Portland, Oregon and Minneapolis, Minnesota. It represents a systemic effort by the executive branch to use the vast surveillance powers of the state to sideline perceived political opponents and those who hold the government to account.

The complaint raises four counts, all under the First Amendment:

Count I(class-wide) alleges the government’s policy of collecting and maintaining personal information about observers based on their protected activity amounts to First Amendment retaliation.Count II(class-wide) alleges the government’s policy violates free speech rights by chilling protected expression without serving any compelling government interest.Count III(named plaintiffs only) alleges First Amendment retaliation based on the additional intimidation of our named plaintiffs through direct threats and harassment, including the “domestic terrorist” label and threats to visit Hilton’s home.Count IV(named plaintiffs only) alleges that these additional threats and harassment violate the plaintiffs’ free speech rights as viewpoint-based suppression.

[Plaintiffs]

Plaintiffs

Residents: The individual plaintiffs include…

• Elinor Hilton
• Colleen Fagan

[Defendants]

Defendants

• U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
• Kristi Noem, Secretary of DHS
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
• Todd Lyons, Acting Director of ICE
• Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
• John Condon, Director of HSI
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
• Rodney Scott, Commissioner of CBP
• U.S. Border Patrol (USBP)
• Michael Banks, Chief of USBP

[Case Documents]

Case Documents

** Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ** February 23, 2026 Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Join Us.

Building a stronger, more resilient democracy is possible, but we can’t do it alone. Become part of the fight today.

Donate

Sign Up for Updates Sign Up for Updates

Explore Careers Explore Careers

How to Protect Democracy How to Protect Democracy