Hacker News Reader

Comment by Filligree | Hacker News Reader

Were they legally required to?

For a normal subpoena from a court, yes.

For an "administrative" subpoena from an agency, they take a risk in court.

Judicial review is deferred. If Google thinks the subpoena is egregious, they can go to court and argue. But in the meantime they can either carry it out or risk being held in contempt if they don't and lose in court.

According to this article, it is treated as a request and often denied by the company. The target of the warrant did go to court to quash it, but that was already after Google declined to share the information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/02/03/hom...

edit: it appears that either 1. the Washington Post is printing misinformation, or 2. I have made a grave misinterpretation.

Washington Post can be relied on to publish disinformation, not just misinformation:

https://bsky.app/profile/cingraham.bsky.social/post/3mecltnb...

Washington Post editorials have gotten pretty conservative, but that's different from articles in the news section.

(It seems similar to the difference between the Wall Street Journal's reporting and editorials.)

If their editorial content is for sale, is it not reasonable to assume the rest is for sale also?

The above example isn’t a “conservative” editorial, it is a partisan editorial. A legitimate organization would never publish such inconsistent writing.

I mean, it is BezPost.

I think that is a different case though.

According to the ACLU, they are not [1]. So Google voluntarily handed over user information. It requires a court order to enforce it and that requires a judge to sign off on it.

This is somewhat analogous to ICE's use of administrative warrants, which really have no legal standing. They certainly don't allow ICE to enter a private abode. You need a judicial warrant for that. That too requires a judge to sign off on it.

[1]: https://www.aclu.org/documents/know-your-rights-ice-administ...

> They certainly don't allow ICE to enter a private abode.

I'd just note that ICE is (falsely) claiming otherwise these days.

https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...

"Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches."

Indeed, law enforcement officers frequently lie about laws in order to accomplish their goals. This erodes public trust in law enforcement. As a society we should structure incentives such that agents of the government should be exposed to the externalities resulting from their actions.

The government (=Stephen Miller) said ICE agents have "federal immunity," so good luck with applying "externalities resulting from their actions."

> As a society we should structure incentives such that agents of the government should be exposed to the externalities resulting from their actions.

That’s the most oblique way of writing “lock and load” that I’ve ever seen.

It's a recommendation for us to lobby Congress to make an amendment to US Code. It would add a requirement for mandatory disciplinary action for agents in the government who breach public trust, with a series of specific elements to ensure a narrow application of the policy.

It's delightfully surprising to see text interpreted in different ways. It would not have occurred to me to have considered your understanding.

You may not advocate violence on HN. That's why the other guy spoke of the "three" boxes of liberty.

That’s one interpretation.

The same could describe “abolish qualified immunity and make law enforcement carry insurance like doctors.

Too much malpractice? Insurance goes up.

And ICE/DHS leadership is openly issuing memos advising agents to ignore Federal Court rulings. It's so fucked up.

This is more aimed at individuals or smaller actors that may be getting subpoenas from ICE.

There is actually a legal standing for DHS to issue these administrative warrants on corporations in this way.

the only way to legally search a house, car or force companies to hand anything over is with a judge signing it off

the article isn't clear about it but it implies that this was not approved by a judge but DHS alone, this is also indicated but the fact that the supona contained a gag order but Google still informed the affected person that _some_ information was hanged over

now some level of cooperation with law enforcement even without a judge is normal to reduce friction and if you love in a proper state of law there is no problem Keith it.

Also companies are to some degree required to cooperate.

What makes this case so problematic is the amount of information shared without a judge order, that ICE tried to gag Google, that Google did delay compliance to give the affected person a chance to take legal action even through they could, and last but but least that this information seems to have been requested for retaliation against protestor which is a big no go for a state of law

Apparently around 300 students have been deported over pro-Palestine activism, similar to the person in the article who self-deported

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/04/05/visa-immigrati...

> Legally, the answer is murky, one expert told The Washington Post — at least when it comes to combing through Supreme Court decisions for answers. The court has been clear that First Amendment protections from criminal or civil penalties for speech apply to citizens and noncitizens alike. What’s less settled, however, is how those protections apply in the immigration context, where the executive branch has broad discretion to detain or deport.

The law is both in wording and spirit pretty clear that

- any civilian has a right for free speech, and protests count as that

- any civilian has a right for due process

There is nothing murky about that.

There are just people pretending it's murky (in this and many other cases) to systematically undermine the US constitution.

Which is a huge problem (beyond this specific case and made much worse by the state of current supreme court).

Why is this a bad thing? It's just like India kicking out those two tourists for political signs. I can't see any benefit at all to allowing tourist or student visas is this case to participate in "activism".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/india-orders-british-tou...

Non-citizens have constitutional rights as well. The DHS having the ability to produce subpoenas without judicial oversight is definitely a bad thing.

Sure, their rights will not be violated. They will not be jailed for their activism just removed/banned from the country.

How does that not violate their right to freedom of speech and assembly?

If I'm reading you right, you're saying if one country does something bad, that makes it OK for another country to do the same? You can likely find a country in the world doing any heinous thing you can think of, so is everything on the table? What about positive things? Lots of countries have socialized medicine, so by your logic doesn't that mean the US should, too?

And if you think activism is bad for non-residents (non-citizens?) who do you think should decide what constitutes activism? A student goes to a pro-Israel rally, is that deportable activism? A tourist goes to an 'adopt-a-puppy' event at a no-kill shelter and donates $10, is that deportable activism?

No, you're so far off base I don't really know how you even got there.

My point is purely that it is 100% inappropriate for a guests in our country to be pushing for political change in our own country.

Once upon a same, the exact same argument was made against women or black slaves pushing for political change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com