Case: Streever v. Mullin
1:26-cv-02356 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: July 6, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
In this case, a journalist alleges that after he emailed the then-acting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director criticizing the agency’s immigration enforcement operations, federal agents visited the journalist’s home, delivered a warning notice to his wife, and then tracked him to a New York City hotel in violation of the First Amendment.
On July 6, 2026, the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, against the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the then-acting director of ICE, and several ICE officials and special agents in their official capacity. Following the deaths of two police observers during ICE operations in Minnesota in January 2026, the Plaintiff, an author and journalist, emailed the then-acting director of ICE to criticize the conduct of ICE agents and the agency’s immigration enforcement operations. According to the complaint, five months later, ICE special agents showed up at the Plaintiff’s home in Rochester, New York with a warning notice that the Plaintiff’s email may have violated federal law. The notice called for the Plaintiff to cease such conduct, sign the notice, and return it to ICE. The Plaintiff's wife told the ICE special agents that he was currently out of the country. Days later, on the day of the Plaintiff’s return to the U.S., federal agents tracked the Plaintiff and his daughter to a New York City hotel, allegedly telling the hotel clerk that federal agents were looking for the Plaintiff. The complaint also states that the Plaintiff received two voicemails from callers who identified themselves as “Homeland Security Investigations.”
The Plaintiff brought suit under the Declaratory Judgment Act and First Amendment claims, alleging that the agents’ visit to his home, apparent surveillance of his travel, visit to his hotel, repeated telephone messages, and claims that his email was a threat of violence constituted unconstitutional First Amendment retaliation in violation of the Speech and Petition Clauses of the First Amendment. Represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys’ fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Rudolph Contreras.
On July 7, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asserting that the Defendants’ allegedly unconstitutional acts would continue absent a preliminary injunction.
On July 20, 2026, the Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss, motion to transfer venue, and motion to hold in abeyance briefing on the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint for improper venue because the relevant events did not occur in Washington D.C., or, in the alternative, transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. On July 29, 2026, Judge Rudolph Contreras issued an order denying the Defendants’ request to hold the preliminary injunction briefing in abeyance.
On September 15, 2026, Judge Rudolph Contreras issued an opinion denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to transfer venue, and granting in part Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. In doing so, the court found that venue was appropriate in the District of Columbia because at least one federal defendant resided there. 2026 WL 2720475. Furthermore, there was a meaningful connection to the District of Columbia because several relevant events occurred in the District, and ultimately the court found that the Defendants had not met their burden of showing that transfer was proper.2026 WL 2720475.
In granting Plaintiff’s motion in part for preliminary injunction, the court found that Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the investigation into his email but maintained standing to challenge the warning notice. 2026 WL 2720475. Because ICE had submitted a report closing the investigation into Plaintiff’s email, the court found that Plaintiff no longer suffered from an ongoing injury or faced an immediate threat of injury with respect to the email. 2026 WL 2720475. With respect to the warning notice, because it threatened Plaintiff with future enforcement actions targeting his First Amendment activity and Defendants had not disavowed it, the court found that the warning notice provided a continuing injury over which Plaintiff had standing to sue. 2026 WL 2720475. The court found that in issuing the warning notice, Defendants likely violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to free speech. 2026 WL 2720475. The court vacated the warning notice for the time being, and enjoined Defendants from relying on it, issuing similar threats, or making good on the threats in the warning notice. 2026 WL 2720475.
The court also stayed its ruling for fourteen days to allow Defendants time to appeal and seek a stay of the court’s order from the appellate court. 2026 WL 2720475. As of September 20, 2026, this case is ongoing; Defendants' response to the complaint is due by October 5, 2026.
Summary Authors
Allie Chang (9/22/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73575925/parties/streever-v-mullin/
Contreras, Rudolph (District of Columbia)
Abbott, Hannah (District of Columbia)
Morris, Jt (District of Columbia)
Bracken, Mason D. (District of Columbia)
Georgiev-Remmel, Dimitar (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73575925/streever-v-mullin/
Last updated Sept. 25, 2026, 3:13 a.m.
Docket for: STREEVER v. MULLIN
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 6, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is an American citizen who is an author and journalist.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-02356
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of Streever v. Mullin, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48346/ (last updated 9/22/2026).