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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
> 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.
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".
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?
Because it’s important context for understanding what the “point” of the article is. It could be any of:
- reporting on google’s violation of privacy laws or handing over info they weren’t required to
- reporting on the US government’s abuse of existing process that Google was legally required to comply with but ought to have challenged
- calling attention to investigatory legal practices that are normal and above-board but the author of the article wishes they were otherwise.
Some of these are motives are closer to the journalism end of the spectrum and some of them are closer to advocacy. I interpret this article as the third bucket but I wish it were clearer about the intent and what they are actually attempting to convey. The fact that the article is not clear about the actual law here (for example, was this a judicial subpoena?) makes me trust it less.
It reflects even worse on Google for vacuuming up and keeping the data.
They can’t really refuse to hand over the data, but they could purge and stop collecting identifying data on Americans. As is, they are tacitly complicit by collecting data they know will be used against protesters.
giant private companies like Google are not ever going to be involved with defying court orders, especially ones that do lots of business with the federal government (which will be just about any company even half of google's size). You can say it's wrong or whatever but it's like asking a brick wall to do an Irish jig.
The only solution to this problem is for the US to have a vastly more active anti-monopoly regime so that companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. are simply not allowed to exist at such scales where consumers are locked into them.
Let's be real, if a bigtech ignored judicial orders, whether you would describe it as "fighting autocracy" or "corporate fascism" is 100% dependent on who is currently in office
Google is a multi trillion dollar company, not a scrappy libertarian upstart ready to gamble everything in court
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.
I think that is a different case though.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
You may not advocate violence on HN. That's why the other guy spoke of the "three" boxes of liberty.
The government (=Stephen Miller) said ICE agents have "federal immunity," so good luck with applying "externalities resulting from their actions."
And ICE/DHS leadership is openly issuing memos advising agents to ignore Federal Court rulings. It's so fucked up.
[flagged]
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.
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...
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?
Non-citizens have constitutional rights as well. The DHS having the ability to produce subpoenas without judicial oversight is definitely a bad thing.
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).
[flagged]
[flagged]
Indeed.
[dead]
[flagged]
Because it’s important context for understanding what the “point” of the article is. It could be any of:
- reporting on google’s violation of privacy laws or handing over info they weren’t required to
- reporting on the US government’s abuse of existing process that Google was legally required to comply with but ought to have challenged
- calling attention to investigatory legal practices that are normal and above-board but the author of the article wishes they were otherwise.
Some of these are motives are closer to the journalism end of the spectrum and some of them are closer to advocacy. I interpret this article as the third bucket but I wish it were clearer about the intent and what they are actually attempting to convey. The fact that the article is not clear about the actual law here (for example, was this a judicial subpoena?) makes me trust it less.
It reflects even worse on Google for vacuuming up and keeping the data.
They can’t really refuse to hand over the data, but they could purge and stop collecting identifying data on Americans. As is, they are tacitly complicit by collecting data they know will be used against protesters.
> they could purge and stop collecting identifying data on Americans.
That's their entire business model though...
giant private companies like Google are not ever going to be involved with defying court orders, especially ones that do lots of business with the federal government (which will be just about any company even half of google's size). You can say it's wrong or whatever but it's like asking a brick wall to do an Irish jig.
The only solution to this problem is for the US to have a vastly more active anti-monopoly regime so that companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. are simply not allowed to exist at such scales where consumers are locked into them.
it depends if potential reputation damage is high.
Apple was fighting for user's privacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
Let's be real, if a bigtech ignored judicial orders, whether you would describe it as "fighting autocracy" or "corporate fascism" is 100% dependent on who is currently in office
Google is a multi trillion dollar company, not a scrappy libertarian upstart ready to gamble everything in court