The linked Google policy states:

>We won’t give notice when legally prohibited under the terms of the request.

The post states that his lawyer has reviewed the subpoena, but doesn't mention whether or not it contained a non-disclosure order. That's an important detail to address if the claim is that Google acted against its own policy.

▲

jgkelley an hour ago | parent | next [-]

EFF's letter offers more details and says that the subpoena did not contain a gag order: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/13/eff_letter_re_google_no...

▲

FireBeyond 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Administrative subpoenas are tenuous at best, but in the absence of an actual court order, words from ICE attorneys or officers saying "You are ordered not to disclose the details of this subpoena" have no actual weight in law.

▲

hypeatei 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This exactly. It's like everyone is assuming whatever ICE ordered Google to do was completely lawful. Even if this administration was a tightly run ship, when an agency gets a massive funding increase and daily quotas to hit like ICE did, all bets are off and you should never give them the benefit of the doubt. Obviously when the DHS secretary is calling American protesters domestic terrorists, cosplaying as a cop, and spending $200M+ on ads that feature herself, then you definitely give maximum scrutiny to everything that agency is doing/did.

	▲	fn-mote an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Cited elsewhere in this thread. [1] > First, numerous other individuals have challenged recent administrative subpoenas in court after receiving notice, and the Department of Homeland Security has withdrawn those subpoenas before reaching a court decision. They don't want a ruling against them. > [The subpoena would have been quashed because] there are facial deficiencies in the subpoena, including that the subpoena is missing a “Title of Proceeding.” [1]: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/13/eff_letter_re_google_no...

▲

Spooky23 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The article pointed this out as well, but notably did not state that Google had in fact received an administrative subpoena.

	▲	cheriot an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		From the article > In April 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent Google an administrative subpoena requesting his data.
	▲	bannable an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		fta > In September 2024, Amandla Thomas-Johnson was a Ph.D. candidate studying in the U.S. on a student visa when he briefly attended a pro-Palestinian protest. In April 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent Google an administrative subpoena requesting his data.
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

jmyeet 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

According to the ACLU [1]:

> This document explains two key ways that recipients can resist immigration administrative subpoenas: First, any gag order in these subpoenas has no legal effect; you are free to publicize them and inform the target of the subpoena. Second, you do not have to comply with the subpoena at all, unless ICE goes to court—where you can raise a number of possible objections—and the court orders compliance.

[1]: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites...

▲

sam345 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree, but the purpose of these kind of lawsuits and journalism is to push the activism narrative. All one has to do is read their policy. There is no basis for going after Google that's obvious.

	▲	kokanee an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Weird take. When it comes to trying to compel tech companies to not be evil, trying to use legal precedent for crimes you can charge them with is usually difficult and turns into a semantic debate. I think what's more important is that we recognize when people and companies abuse power to do evil things, regardless of what legal precedent or written corporate policy is relevant. These companies act exactly as evil as they can possibly get away with without pushing us to other products and services.
	▲	Forgeties79 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Frankly I trust the EFF more than anyone else in this situation/conversation. So I will assume there is a very clear basis. I don’t know what you mean by “activism narrative” but the EFF has been fighting for your digital rights for many, many years. It reads like you consider their work disingenuous, but I can tell you from firsthand experience it is not. They deserve less skepticism than you’re giving them.