By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a hearing in a Minnesota federal court, a Department of Justice attorney argued that observing police does not receive First Amendment protection. This assertion was made in response to a lawsuit by Minnesota protesters who claimed immigration agents arrested, pepper-sprayed, and intimidated them. The attorney cited a 2023 ruling to support his argument. Judge Katherine Menendez, overseeing the case, questioned the legality of federal law enforcement stopping protesters following them in vehicles.
Read the original article here
DOJ Argues Protesters Don’t Have Constitutional Right to Observe Immigration Agents, and it’s hard to know where to even begin. It feels like the Department of Justice has completely lost its way, arguing against a fundamental principle that seems obvious to most people: the right to observe and document government activity, especially when it involves potential abuses of power. The idea that protesters don’t have a constitutional right to observe immigration agents is, frankly, alarming. It’s like saying, “We’re going to do things in the shadows, and you’re not allowed to look.” It evokes the imagery of a secret police force, not a government accountable to its citizens.
The DOJ’s stance feels like a continuation of the kind of arguments that seem to prioritize protecting government actors over the rights of the people. This is especially true when it comes to activities that the public has a right to know about. The argument itself seems flimsy, especially since the right to film law enforcement officers in public spaces has been affirmed repeatedly by the courts. It’s almost as if the DOJ is hoping to wear down those who seek to hold them accountable, or to muddy the waters in order to create a climate of fear and intimidation. The very notion that simply watching and recording what government officials do constitutes interference or obstruction is absurd.
One can’t help but wonder if the people involved in these arguments are aware of the potential consequences of their actions. It makes you question the qualifications and motivations of the prosecutors involved when they are fighting so hard against basic legal principles. This kind of legal maneuvering is a waste of resources. It also raises questions about whether the DOJ is prioritizing its own agenda over the rule of law. If the government has nothing to hide, then why are they so vehemently opposing public scrutiny?
It seems like they want to be able to act with impunity, to beat people down or arrest them without any oversight, and then say “do something about it.” That kind of behavior undermines the foundations of a democratic society. It fosters a climate of mistrust and makes people question the legitimacy of the government itself. It seems the DOJ is attempting to change how the law works to favor their own actions.
It’s particularly galling when you consider the broader context. There seems to be a tendency to demonize protesters, to portray them as domestic terrorists, simply for expressing opposing opinions or criticizing government actions. The fact that the DOJ is willing to go to these lengths to restrict the ability of people to observe immigration agents raises serious questions about the fairness and transparency of the immigration system itself. If they’re operating legally and ethically, then they should welcome scrutiny.
The argument itself, the one about not having the right to observe public officials, is a direct challenge to the First Amendment. It’s a fundamental principle of freedom of speech and the press. It’s a sad state of affairs when the government, through the DOJ, seems to actively work against the rights guaranteed by the constitution. It also seems the DOJ is arguing against established legal precedents.
This whole situation feels like a sad joke, a “Department of Jokes” where the principles of justice and accountability are tossed aside for political expediency. If you were to give these kinds of arguments a fair shake, it is almost as if the DOJ is arguing for a right to privacy, a right that should not apply when government actors are carrying out their duties in public. It’s like saying, “We can do whatever we want, and you’re not allowed to know about it.” The DOJ should be ashamed of itself.