What recent court rulings have specifically struck down DHS or federal rules limiting recording of agents?
Executive summary
Federal appeals courts have repeatedly held that filming and other expressive acts around law enforcement are core First Amendment activity, and reporters and civil-liberties groups say those precedents undercut DHS claims that videotaping federal agents equals obstruction; however, the reporting provided does not identify a recent decision that formally struck down a specific DHS or federal rule that expressly banned recording of agents [1] [2] ICE.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[3].
1. Circuit courts have repeatedly protected recording as speech — concrete examples cited by reporting
Multiple federal circuit decisions are described in the reporting as recognizing recording or warning others about police activity as First Amendment speech: the 10th Circuit in 2022 found a Colorado plaintiff had a clear First Amendment retaliation claim after an officer prevented him from filming a traffic stop, and the 2nd Circuit in 2023 held that police violated a Connecticut man’s First Amendment rights when they arrested him for holding a sign warning drivers of police activity ahead [1]. Commentary from legal observers and think tanks likewise emphasizes that federal appellate case law has consistently treated filming on-duty officers as constitutionally protected conduct [2].
2. DHS and some officials assert videotaping can be obstruction even as courts say otherwise
Despite those appellate rulings, reporting shows senior DHS officials and allied actors publicly characterizing videotaping, doxxing, and following agents as threats or obstructions — a rhetoric that has informed internal policy choices and public statements [1] [4]. Reason and other outlets note a growing gap between agency pronouncements that describe videotaping as potentially criminal or violent and the trajectory of federal appellate decisions recognizing such recordings as protected speech [1] [4].
3. Agency memoranda and memos expanding enforcement powers have triggered litigation and scrutiny, but not a clear “struck-down” rule in the provided reporting
Investigations and whistleblower disclosures about ICE and DHS memos — for example, a May 12, 2025 ICE memo discussed in reporting that authorizes broader arrests in residences — have prompted legal and political pushback and concern about constitutional limits on agency action [5] [6]. Senate correspondence and watchdog analysis further state there has been no intervening Supreme Court decision justifying a radical narrowing of constitutional protections that would validate sweeping DHS policy shifts, suggesting the agency’s legal footing is contested [3]. The materials provided do not, however, cite a recent judicial order that explicitly invalidated a named DHS or federal regulation that categorically barred recording of agents.
4. What courts have done versus what agencies have tried to do — the practical gap reporters flag
Commentators from Cato and other outlets argue federal courts have “disagreed” with DHS positions and that appellate precedent undermines agency efforts to intimidate or criminalize observers who record operations [2]. Reporting highlights a pattern: courts protect recording in case-by-case litigation, while DHS and some political actors have pursued policies and public messaging aimed at curbing or stigmatizing recording of operations [2] [4]. The result, according to the coverage, is a legal landscape where enforcement actions and agency memos provoke lawsuits, but the sources do not show a definitive, recent judicial decision expressly invalidating a regulatory text issued by DHS that bans recording.
5. Bottom line and limits of the record
The available reporting documents multiple appellate rulings and scholarly commentary establishing that filming police and warning others are constitutionally protected activities and that DHS statements claiming videotaping equals obstruction are at odds with that body of law [1] [2]. It also documents contested DHS memos expanding operational authority that have attracted legal scrutiny [5] [6]. What the reporting does not provide is a named, recent court decision that formally struck down a specific DHS or federal regulation expressly limiting recording of agents; therefore, any assertion that such a rule has been struck down would go beyond these sources [3].