The DHS protesters Signal chats dispute is a narrower legal fight than the headline-friendly version suggests: the Department of Homeland Security is seeking discovery in a Maine civil-rights lawsuit, and the plaintiffs’ lawyers say the requests would reach community Signal groups. The material available does not show that DHS obtained those larger chats, that it can break Signal encryption, or that a judge ordered their production.
The case, Hilton v. Noem, was filed in federal court in Maine in 2025. The plaintiffs accuse DHS of violating their First Amendment rights by monitoring people who observed immigration enforcement activity. WIRED reported that one plaintiff alleged agents photographed her face, collected her license-plate information and said she would be placed in a database.
According to court filings described by WIRED, local residents began using rapid-response Signal groups after immigration enforcement activity increased in their neighborhoods. Participants used the chats to pass along the locations and timing of DHS operations.
What did DHS seek from Maine protesters’ Signal chats?
The government’s discovery requests, as reported by WIRED, sought records of protests attended by each named plaintiff. They also covered communications, comments and likes concerning plaintiffs’ views of law-enforcement personnel, operations, tactics and activity, as well as communications about opportunities to observe or record ICE activity in Maine from January 20, 2025 onward.
Discovery is the stage of a lawsuit when each side can request evidence from the other. It does not itself decide whether the government’s underlying surveillance was lawful, or whether every requested record must be turned over.
In June, lawyers for the plaintiffs told the Justice Department they were withholding the larger community Signal groups despite considering them potentially responsive to the requests. They submitted smaller Signal chats to the court, they said, while removing contact details for people who are not plaintiffs and material that could disclose a community group’s priorities, tactics or strategy.
- Government lawyers also questioned plaintiffs in depositions about who took part in the chats, according to WIRED.
- The questions included whether public officials or unnamed political groups participated, whether members lived outside Maine and who organized the groups.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel argues that demanding the chats would intrude on First Amendment expressive association, a legal position rather than a court ruling.
Genevieve Nadeau, an attorney for the plaintiffs and a lawyer with Protect Democracy, told WIRED the government was trying to access private communications used for lawful community coordination. Adam Steinbaugh of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression told the outlet that people should not have to surrender expressive-association rights in order to sue over alleged First Amendment violations.
Did DHS get the Signal group chats?
That has not been established. The available reporting identifies a live disagreement over production, but no ruling requiring the community chats to be disclosed and no indication that DHS received them. DHS and the Justice Department did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.
A separate FBI investigation into alleged Signal-chat coordination in Minneapolis, reported in January, is not part of Hilton v. Noem. FBI Director Kash Patel said the bureau was examining whether alleged conduct violated federal law, while free-speech advocates noted that observing and documenting law enforcement activity can be lawful. Different state, different case, different procedural posture.
This story draws on original reporting from WIRED.
