By Patricia Jones The Nicole Cleland Border Patrol lawsuit accuses the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of monitoring people who observe immigration enforcement and using the collected information to retaliate against them. Cleland, a Minnesota resident, claims her Global Entry and TSA PreCheck privileges were revoked three days after a Border Patrol agent confronted her while she was observing federal vehicles.
The federal lawsuit was filed on July 24, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Its case number is 3:26-cv-04232-AJB-MSB. The plaintiffs are Cleland, legal observers Jacquelyn Ivey and Anna Walker, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, commonly known as EPIC.
The allegations have not been proved in court. The government agencies and officials named as defendants will have an opportunity to challenge the claims.
What Happened During the Border Patrol Encounter?
According to the complaint, Cleland participated in legal observation activities in Richfield, Minnesota, on January 10, 2026. She drove near vehicles she believed were being used by federal immigration agents while maintaining enough distance for other vehicles to travel between them.
The vehicles eventually stopped in the street, and Cleland stopped her own car. A federal agent wearing camouflage allegedly approached her vehicle, addressed her by name and said that he had facial-recognition technology and that his body camera was recording. The agent reportedly confirmed that he worked for Border Patrol.
Cleland claims the agent accused her of impeding federal operations and warned that she could be arrested if she continued interfering. Her complaint says the agent did not explain how following the vehicles at a distance on a public road interfered with Border Patrol’s work. He then returned to his vehicle and left.
Global Entry Revoked Three Days Later
On January 13, Cleland received an email stating that DHS had revoked her Global Entry and TSA PreCheck status. The notice allegedly provided no explanation for the decision.
Cleland says she had participated in Global Entry since 2014 and had been reapproved in 2024. She claims she had no other recent law-enforcement encounters or conduct suggesting that she presented a security risk. She therefore believes the revocation resulted from her observation of the Border Patrol vehicles.
Global Entry allows approved travellers to receive expedited entry processing when returning to the United States. U.S. citizens enrolled in Global Entry can also receive TSA PreCheck benefits for eligible airport-security screening.
The government may revoke Trusted Traveller status when it determines that a participant no longer meets programme requirements. However, Cleland argues that the government cannot lawfully use the programme to punish constitutionally protected activity.
Lawsuit Challenges Alleged Surveillance Policy
The case is broader than Cleland’s individual Global Entry revocation. The plaintiffs claim DHS adopted an undisclosed policy allowing immigration agents to collect and store personal information about protesters and legal observers.
The complaint alleges that agents have used body cameras, facial-recognition applications, mobile phones, drones and licence-plate information to identify people observing immigration operations. It further claims that the information may be stored in government systems such as DHS’s Automated Targeting System.
The plaintiffs argue that maintaining records describing lawful observation and protest activity violates the Privacy Act. That law generally limits when federal agencies may maintain records describing how individuals exercise First Amendment rights.
They also allege that DHS failed to publish required notices explaining what information it collects, how the records are used, how long they are retained and which agencies may access them.
First Amendment Retaliation Claim
Cleland and the other individual plaintiffs bring a First Amendment retaliation claim. They argue that peacefully observing and recording law-enforcement officers performing public duties is constitutionally protected activity.
The lawsuit alleges that DHS created records about the observers and then used those records to revoke their Trusted Traveller privileges. According to the complaint, such punishment could discourage an ordinary person from continuing to observe or criticise federal operations.
Cleland says she stopped participating in legal observation after the encounter because she feared arrest. She also claims she has limited some electronic communications, experienced anxiety while travelling and worried that the government may continue monitoring her movements.
What Are the Plaintiffs Seeking?
The plaintiffs are not requesting a specified multimillion-dollar damages award. Instead, they primarily seek court orders changing the government’s alleged surveillance practices.
They want the court to invalidate the alleged policy, require DHS to delete information collected about lawful observers and prohibit the government from using such records to cancel Global Entry, TSA PreCheck or other benefits.
They also seek restoration of lost Trusted Traveller status, reinstatement of earlier federal privacy safeguards and payment of reasonable legal fees and court costs.
Current Status of the Lawsuit
The Nicole Cleland Border Patrol lawsuit remains at an early stage. It has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia, with Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg also assigned to the matter. No judgment or settlement has been announced.
The case could help determine when federal immigration agencies may collect identifying information about people who observe enforcement operations and whether Trusted Traveller privileges can be withdrawn based on such activities.