Four protesters arrested during a high-profile federal crackdown in Chicago are suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to block the government from creating a vast DNA database targeting critics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In a lawsuit filed in an Illinois district court last week, the plaintiffs allege that federal agents seized their DNA samples without consent, uploaded their genetic profiles to government databases, and are storing the samples indefinitely—raising serious questions about the scope of surveillance and the use of biometric data against peaceful activists.
The lawsuit, Briggs v. DHS, comes on the heels of “Operation Midway Blitz,” a controversial federal immigration enforcement operation in Chicago last September that saw thousands of agents deployed to the city’s Broadview ICE facility. According to the complaint, protesters were arrested during the operation and subjected to DNA collection, a practice the government has defended as standard procedure for those taken into custody. But the plaintiffs argue that the collection and storage of their DNA violates their First Amendment right to free speech, their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The case has drawn sharp attention from civil liberties advocates and legal scholars, who warn that the government’s DNA collection practices could be used to monitor and target activists, their families, and associates. The lawsuit also raises broader concerns about the federal government’s ability to build a biometric database of political dissidents, a prospect that has alarmed privacy rights groups and constitutional law experts alike.
Operation Midway Blitz itself has been the subject of intense scrutiny. An Illinois Accountability Commission report released in late April detailed widespread allegations of excessive force, including physical abuse, indiscriminate use of chemical agents, and other violent conduct by federal agents during the operation. The report recommended prosecuting some agents for potential criminal violations, further escalating tensions between local authorities and the federal government.
What the Protesters Are Accusing the Government Of
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim that after their arrests at the Broadview ICE facility, federal agents collected buccal swabs—samples taken from the inside of their cheeks—for DNA analysis. The complaint alleges that these samples were then uploaded to government databases and stored indefinitely, without the protesters’ knowledge or consent. The protesters argue that this practice is not only a violation of their constitutional rights but also creates a permanent record that could be used for future surveillance or retaliation.
According to the lawsuit, the government’s actions are part of a broader pattern of targeting individuals who oppose ICE activities. The plaintiffs contend that the DNA samples could be used to identify and track not only the protesters but also their relatives and associates, effectively creating a chilling effect on free speech and assembly.
Legal experts say the case hinges on whether the government’s DNA collection policy applies uniformly to all arrestees or if it is being used selectively against protesters. The practice of collecting DNA from arrestees is legal under federal law, but the plaintiffs argue that the manner in which it is being applied—particularly against those exercising their First Amendment rights—raises serious constitutional concerns.
Operation Midway Blitz: A Timeline of Events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 2025 | Operation Midway Blitz begins in Chicago, with thousands of federal agents deployed to the Broadview ICE facility. |
| September 27, 2025 | Protests outside the Broadview ICE facility lead to multiple arrests, including those later named in the lawsuit. |
| October 2025 | Governor J.B. Pritzker establishes the Illinois Accountability Commission to investigate allegations of misconduct by federal agents. |
| April 2026 | Illinois Accountability Commission releases its final report, detailing allegations of excessive force and other violations by federal agents. |
| May 6, 2026 | Lawsuit filed in Illinois district court by protesters arrested during Operation Midway Blitz, alleging violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights due to DNA collection. |
Who Is Affected and Why It Matters
The lawsuit is not just about the four named plaintiffs. Civil liberties organizations warn that the government’s DNA collection practices could have far-reaching implications for anyone who engages in political activism or protests. If the government is allowed to build a database of DNA samples from protesters, it sets a precedent that could be used to monitor and suppress dissent more broadly.
the practice of collecting and storing DNA samples raises significant privacy concerns. Unlike fingerprints or photographs, DNA contains highly sensitive genetic information that can reveal details about a person’s health, ancestry, and even predispositions to certain conditions. The permanent storage of this data could expose individuals to risks of identity theft, discrimination, and unintended surveillance.
Legal scholars also point out that the government’s actions could undermine public trust in law enforcement and the judicial system. If citizens believe that their biometric data is being used to target them for their political beliefs, it could discourage peaceful protest and engagement in civic life.
What’s Next for the Lawsuit
The next critical step in the case will be a hearing to determine whether the court will issue a preliminary injunction to halt the government’s DNA collection practices pending further review. Legal experts say the outcome of this hearing could have significant implications for the balance between law enforcement’s need for investigative tools and the constitutional rights of protesters.
If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could force the government to reconsider its DNA collection policies, particularly as they apply to individuals exercising their First Amendment rights. Alternatively, if the government prevails, it could set a precedent allowing for the expanded use of biometric data in political contexts.
The case is already drawing attention from advocacy groups, including the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center, which have filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs. These organizations argue that the government’s actions violate fundamental constitutional protections and could have a chilling effect on free speech.
As the legal battle unfolds, the broader implications for civil liberties and privacy rights in the digital age remain uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the case has sparked a national conversation about the limits of government surveillance and the protections afforded to those who challenge federal policies.
For updates on the lawsuit and related developments, visit the Ars Technica coverage or follow the Illinois district court docket for Briggs v. DHS.
We welcome your thoughts on this developing story. Share your perspective in the comments below or join the discussion on social media.
