A partially unsealed court filing described by WIRED alleges that an ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent entered information about people observing an immigration-enforcement operation into ICE’s Investigative Case Management system, which uses Palantir software. The allegations include photos, personal information and a vehicle-record lookup. DHS disputes that the case shows it maintains a domestic-terrorism database, and a federal judge has not ruled on the underlying claims.
What does the filing allege ICE did?
In an October 2, 2026, report, WIRED described a partially unsealed filing in Hilton et al. v. Noem, a civil-rights lawsuit over the treatment of people observing immigration enforcement in Maine. According to WIRED’s account of the filing, an HSI agent identified as “J.C.” used ICM to create records on observers during “Operation Catch of the Day,” an immigration-enforcement surge in January 2026.
The filing reportedly said J.C. created records on at least six observers; the government put the number at eight. Those are competing counts attributed to the parties, not a total established by a judge. The reported records included photographs and other identifying information.
Photos and a facial-recognition search
WIRED reports that two people photographed in a Home Depot parking lot were described in the filing as “Threat to Law Enforcement, Professional Protestor.” The report says the agent sent photos of them and other people to a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer for a facial-recognition search using an app called Mobile Query. That description is an allegation reported from the filing; it does not establish that the label was a formal government designation or that a search produced a match.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
A vehicle lookup and information about its registered owner
The report also describes an incident on January 20, 2026, in Portland. Polyxenia Pantos allegedly watched and photographed an arrest from beside their spouse’s vehicle. The filing, as WIRED describes it, says J.C. ran the license plate and obtained an Accurint report about the registered owner, Carlyn Williams. The report says the information included Williams’ address, phone numbers and cohabitants; it further says the agent circulated Williams’ photo to colleagues and later created an ICM record. These are reported claims, not court findings.
What was allegedly said about a watchlist
WIRED reports that Williams said J.C. warned her to discourage Pantos from similar conduct and referred to possible placement on a domestic-terrorism watchlist. The agent testified that he warned of arrest if the conduct continued, while government attorneys said he denied mentioning a watchlist. The government argued that the agent did not try to nominate anyone to a terrorist watchlist. The accounts are disputed; the report does not establish that anyone was placed on such a list.
What is ICM, and is it a protester database?
WIRED describes ICM as HSI’s case-management system for documenting investigations. It reports that ICE contracted Palantir to build the system and that ICM uses Palantir’s Gotham software, customized for ICE operational needs. The allegation concerns records entered into this operational system; it is not, by itself, evidence of a separate, dedicated database of protesters or domestic terrorists.
DHS disputes the broader characterization. WIRED quoted a DHS spokesperson calling the case “meritless” and saying the lawsuit was based on “the lie that there is a database of ‘domestic terrorists’ run by DHS.” The report also says Todd Lyons, then former acting ICE director, wrote in an April letter to Rep. Maxwell Frost that ICE does not maintain a database of U.S. citizens protesting ICE activities and that DHS does not keep a separate standalone database of people it has not arrested or detained. Those statements address a separate protester database; they do not resolve the allegation that individual records were created in ICM.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchThe same distinction matters when considering possible data flow. WIRED says a 2016 DHS privacy assessment described ICM subject records as automatically shared with CBP’s TECS system, where they function as lookout records for border screening. That reported system-level description does not establish that a particular observer’s record was shared, used at a border crossing or caused a particular outcome.
What do plaintiffs and the government say happened?
| Issue | Plaintiffs’ position or reported allegation | Government’s response |
|---|---|---|
| Observer records | The filing, as WIRED describes it, alleges that an HSI agent created ICM records about observers; the plaintiffs’ filing reportedly counted at least six, while the government put the number at eight. | The government reportedly described the conduct as isolated, involving people agents viewed as potential threats to law enforcement, and contrary to policy. |
| Threats and retaliation | The plaintiffs allege surveillance and intimidation, including home drive-bys, and seek limits on collection, retention and sharing of personal and biometric data, as well as protection from retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights. | The government disputes the lawsuit’s characterization and argues the case is meritless. |
| Domestic-terrorism database | The reported allegations concern entries in ICM and statements the plaintiffs say were made about a watchlist. | DHS denies maintaining a separate database of domestic terrorists or a standalone database of U.S. citizens protesting ICE activities; the government says no one was nominated to a terrorist watchlist. |
The table summarizes attributed positions, not findings. A complaint sets out plaintiffs’ claims; it does not prove them. Similarly, the government’s denials and explanations are party statements, not judicial determinations.
Why does Palantir’s role matter—and what does it not show?
The vendor relationship matters because ICM is the system in which the filing reportedly says observer records were entered, and the system uses Palantir’s Gotham software. WIRED reports that ICE awarded Palantir the ICM build contract in 2014. It also reports that a five-year ICM support contract awarded in 2022 was initially valued at up to about $96 million, and that a 2025 addition of nearly $30 million was associated with a platform called ImmigrationOS. These are figures reported in WIRED’s account, not verified current contract totals or evidence of final spending.
Those contracts establish a reported technology relationship, not Palantir’s involvement in the alleged decisions. The available account does not establish that Palantir directed, knew about or approved the agent’s alleged actions. Palantir is not identified as a party to this case, and the report said the company had not responded to a request for comment.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What has the Maine court decided?
The case, Hilton et al. v. Noem, No. 2:2026cv00092, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on February 23, 2026. The named plaintiffs are Elinor Hilton, Colleen Fagan, Polyxenia Pantos and Carlyn Williams. Their April 27 amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief concerning alleged surveillance and intimidation of people observing immigration enforcement.
In April 2026, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order. The order said the constitutional issues were serious but that the evidence then before the court did not justify emergency relief. It stated: “The court concludes that this lawsuit raises serious constitutional issues that are better aired and resolved on a nonemergency basis.” The denial was not a final decision on whether the alleged conduct occurred or violated the law.
The order described DHS policy as generally prohibiting records that describe how a U.S. citizen exercises First Amendment rights, including lawful protest participation, unless an exception applies: the record is authorized by statute, pertinent to or within authorized law-enforcement activity, or created with the person’s consent. The court’s description of policy does not establish that the reported records violated it.
Justia’s retrieved docket listings show discovery proceedings and filings through August 21, 2026. That is not a live docket update for October 2, so later motions, rulings and deadlines are not established here. The available sources also do not establish how often ICE or DHS records people observing enforcement activity beyond this case.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
