Have any doxxing cases against ICE personnel led to arrests, prosecutions, or civil lawsuits?

1. Arrests and indictments that have occurred

Federal and agency reporting identify specific arrests: the San Diego Office of Professional Responsibility investigation led to the arrest of Gregory John Curcio on allegations he posted an ICE attorney’s personal information online and urged harassment, with prosecutors reporting Curcio was taken into custody and made his first court appearance in Los Angeles ^{[1] [4]}, and a U.S. Attorney’s Office announcement and news outlets reported a federal grand jury indictment charging three women in Los Angeles with following an ICE agent home, livestreaming the pursuit and posting the agent’s address—counts that the Justice Department characterized as public disclosure of a federal agent’s personal information and conspiracy ^{[2] [5]}.

2. Department statements and a broader enforcement push

DHS and ICE have publicly framed doxxing of federal officers as a serious criminal threat and vowed prosecution “to the fullest extent of the law,” tying arrests like Curcio’s and the Los Angeles indictment to a broader departmental effort to deter doxxing and threats against officers and their families ^{[4] [6]}. Department communications and press releases repeatedly cite arrests and investigations while warning of escalating threats and urging public reporting through ICE tip lines ^{[1] [4]}.

3. Legal and evidentiary limits—cases that didn’t materialize or may face constitutional tests

At the same time, reporting shows prosecutors have not uniformly translated rhetoric into charges in every jurisdiction: Oregon officials promised prosecutions tied to doxxing around Portland protests but months later had not filed charges, and free-speech experts told OPB those potential prosecutions face an uphill First Amendment and statutory fit—some federal cases rely on a Court Security Improvement Act provision designed for protecting certain officials and may be a novel application when used for ICE agents ^[3]. Independent reporting has also questioned the premise that ICE identities are being systematically revealed by outsiders, noting many entries on doxxing databases appear to derive from material ICE or DHS employees posted publicly themselves, complicating claims about external “doxing” ^[7].

4. Civil lawsuits: limited evidence in the reporting provided

The sourced material documents criminal investigations, indictments and arrests but does not present examples of civil lawsuits brought by ICE personnel against alleged doxxers; where litigation appears in the clips it concerns unrelated civil suits about ICE enforcement practices (for example, litigation over arrests at immigration courthouses) rather than tort or privacy suits by employees against individuals who posted their information ^[8]. That absence in the provided reporting means it cannot be affirmed that civil suits have been filed or prevailed without additional reporting beyond these sources.

5. Why this matters next: test cases and the First Amendment front

What to expect is a legal battleground: prosecutors are already pursuing criminal charges in several districts, but experts and outlets warn the constitutionality of applying certain federal statutes to activist speech or protest conduct could produce appellate test cases—whether courts will sustain prosecutions for publishing officers’ names or addresses when done by protesters or journalists remains an open legal question highlighted by OPB and other coverage ^{[3] [5]}. Meanwhile, independent analyses that question the provenance of some “dox” data (showing it often came from officials’ own public posts) underscore that motivations and factual patterns in individual incidents will matter greatly in court and public debate ^[7].