Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction, Citing First Amendment, Over Man’s Harsh Email to ICE Official

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras issued a preliminary injunction on September 15, 2026, blocking the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement from relying on a warning notice against Rochester, New York, resident David Streever. The notice followed a harsh email to then-acting ICE official Todd Lyons.

The temporary order also bars DHS and ICE from issuing substantially similar threats aimed at Streever’s protected expression. The case continues.

Contreras sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. His order temporarily vacates the notice and prevents the agencies from making good on its threats while the lawsuit proceeds.

The dispute began with a three-paragraph email. It escalated after agents tried to find Streever.

Agents went to Streever’s home in Rochester on June 23, 2026, according to the court materials. They also tried to reach him at an airport and a hotel before leaving a warning notice for his wife.

The notice stated: “YOU MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.” It also said receipt of the document would be considered if Streever continued alleged criminal activity.

Streever’s January message sharply criticized Lyons. It called him “a monstrous human being” and compared him to Reinhard Heydrich. The email also said Lyons would “be a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame at your own pathetic weakness.”

Contreras blocks the notice and similar threats during the case

Contreras found that Streever likely suffered harm from the threat of an investigation or prosecution. He concluded that the warning notice likely violated the First Amendment because it chilled Streever’s political speech.

The judge described the pressure facing Streever in direct terms:

“the loss of his freedom to engage in political speech now because the threat of such an investigation or prosecution looms over him like the sword of Damocles, and he is forced to self-censor under that threat.”

The order bars DHS and ICE from “taking further steps in reliance on the Warning Notice…and from issuing any substantially similar threats to [Streever] aimed at his protected expression during the course of this matter.”

That relief is temporary. It does not resolve the lawsuit’s ultimate claims or determine whether every future inquiry involving Streever would be unlawful.

The lawsuit began after the investigation closed

Streever filed Streever v. Mullin in July 2026. He argued that ICE violated his constitutional rights by trying to locate him and serve the warning notice.

FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, represents him. Government court filings say the investigation closed at the end of June 2026.

Federal lawyers defended in-person investigatory visits accompanied by prophylactic warnings. They called the practice “a critical tool in the investigative and preventative process” and argued that it does not violate the First Amendment.

DHS also defended its handling of threats against agency personnel. The department said, “ICE investigates all credible threats towards its employees and officers, including threats to the ICE Director.”

It added:

“ANYONE who assaults or threatens our law enforcement officers will face the consequences.”

The court’s order addresses the warning notice and threats directed at Streever’s protected expression during the litigation. It does not erase the government’s stated authority to investigate credible threats.

The court also sought the closed-investigation report

Contreras asked the government to turn over the report that closed the investigation into Streever. The request adds a document-production issue to the constitutional dispute.

The injunction could change on appeal or through later rulings. Until then, the case remains pending, with the government’s investigative position and Streever’s speech claim before the court.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.