Federal Judge Allows Labor Unions' Challenge to Government Social Media Surveillance to Proceed
A New York federal court has cleared the way for a lawsuit by three major labor unions challenging what they say is viewpoint-based monitoring of their members' online activity by the State and Homeland Security departments.
Three labor unions can pursue their legal challenge against federal surveillance of their members' social media activity, a federal judge in New York ruled on October 1, 2026. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the government's attempt to dismiss the case, which was filed in October 2025 on behalf of the United Automobile Workers (UAW), Communications Workers of America (CWA), and American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Muslim Advocates, and the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic are providing legal representation.
The ruling permits the unions to move forward with claims that the government's social media surveillance program is damaging their membership and undermining their capacity to organize and communicate with members and potential recruits.
What the Court Found
Judge Hellerstein determined that the threat of immigration consequences posed by the surveillance program is sufficient to discourage ordinary people from exercising their First Amendment rights. The judge wrote:
This threat of adverse immigration consequences, under a government whose harsh immigration crackdowns has been heavily publicized and reported on, is certainly enough to 'deter a person of ordinary firmness from the exercise of First Amendment rights.' It is objectively reasonable that noncitizens would limit their expression of disfavored viewpoints under the [Challenged Surveillance Program] given the credible threat of adverse immigration action from the Government.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein
The court also emphasized that free expression and association are central to how unions function. According to the ruling:
The freedom of Plaintiffs' members to speak, associate, and appear publicly is not incidental to union work, but rather is the mechanism through which unions recruit, organize, communicate, and bargain. A program alleged to silence members and drive them from the unions' rolls therefore strikes at the unions' representational function itself, which is the 'grounds that bring [their] membership together.'
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein
The Surveillance Program
Since taking office, the Trump administration has deployed a mass surveillance operation targeting constitutionally protected speech by noncitizens who are lawfully in the United States. The program employs artificial intelligence and other automated systems to monitor the social media accounts of visa and green card holders, seeking to identify and penalize those who express viewpoints the administration opposes. The surveillance effort has been accompanied by a public intimidation campaign that extends beyond noncitizens themselves to their families, coworkers, and associates.
The unions filed suit against the Departments of State and Homeland Security, contending that the surveillance program violates both the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Statements from Union Leaders
No one should have to fear government surveillance or retaliation against their immigration status for expressing their views or participating in their union. We're pleased the Court has allowed this challenge to move forward and will continue fighting to protect the rights of everyone to speak, organize, and advocate without fear.
UAW President Shawn Fain
This is a victory for working people, for the labor movement, and for our democracy. Our very freedom is under attack by the Trump administration's online surveillance program, and today's decision is a critical first step toward affirming our freedom to speak, to protest, to organize without fear of government retaliation. These essential freedoms underpin our union rights to join together and fight to improve our working conditions. CWA is a fighting union, and our members remain ready to stand together to protect our rights and our freedoms.
CWA President Claude Cummings Jr.
Today's decision is a critical step toward vindicating our Constitutional right to freedom of speech and rejecting the Trump Administration's cynical attempts to criminalize and punish those who disagree with them. Government surveillance to monitor the 'opposition' is a tool of dictators that erodes the democratic principles this country was founded on. We will continue to remain vigilant in defending our 250-year-old rights—not just for our members, but for all Americans.
AFT President Randi Weingarten
Impact on Union Members
According to the legal teams involved, union members have substantially altered their behavior on social media platforms out of concern about the surveillance program. Many have reduced their participation in union-related online content, stopped posting together with other members, and even withdrawn from offline union activities, fearing they could face scrutiny or immigration consequences.
Our plaintiff-unions have members that have wholly changed the way they interact with social media—including limiting their engagement with union content—because of the government's social media surveillance program. Many have stopped posting online together, and have even stopped engaging in offline activities, for fear of being scrutinized or targeted related to immigration benefits. We are pleased that the Court has agreed to let the case proceed, and allow unions and their members to seek justice for infringement of their rights.
EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lisa Femia
Next Steps
With the dismissal motion rejected, the case will now proceed to the merits phase. Sadaf Hasan, a staff attorney at Muslim Advocates, stated:
Today's ruling is an important step forward in holding the government accountable for its ever-expansive online surveillance program that silenced non-citizens, stoking fear that exercise of their protected First Amendment rights could result in unfavorable treatment on their immigration applications or worse. We will keep fighting until all non-citizens are able to freely associate, organize, and speak out without the looming threat of visa revocation and immigration enforcement simply because the government dislikes their views.
Sadaf Hasan, Staff Attorney at Muslim Advocates
Nick Jones, a student in the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic, added: "Defendants' attempt to evade accountability on specious jurisdictional grounds was rightly rejected by the Court. We are excited to see the case now proceed to the merits, where we expect to prevail as well."