Later that day, Jon received an email from Google notifying him that an administrative subpoena had been sent to them from the Department of Homeland Security “compelling the release of information related to your Google Account.” Federal agencies can issue such subpoenas without an order from a judge or grand jury, and Google gave Jon, who withheld his last name to protect his family from the government, one week to challenge it.
Laws are supposed to restrict the use of administrative subpoenas, but DHS has used the tool against dissent protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Jon could not find who in the agency issued the subpoena, let alone a record of it to show an attorney.
Days later, DHS agents showed up at Jon’s door. A naturalized U.S. citizen originally from the U.K., Jon was worried about potential violence. The agents showed him a copy of the email and asked to see his side of the story. They didn’t know about the administrative subpoena but said they received orders to interview Jon by DHS headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Eventually, the agents agreed that Jon had committed no crimes after he told them he found Dernbach’s email address through a simple Google search. Jon secured pro bono representation by ACLU attorneys, who argue that the government is violating a statute that limits how administrative subpoenas can be used for “immigration enforcement” and that the government targeted Jon for protected speech.
Subpoenas, generally speaking, do not require a signature of a judge and aren’t subject to the same scrutiny as a warrant.
Subpoenas are issued against third parties (in this case Google) to compel the release of information. Google can fight the subpoena in court, but they generally don’t.
The enforceability only comes if Google decided not to comply, at which point they could offer to sell the information to the government or a judge ruled that Google must comply.
Again, most companies comply because they often lack the incentive to not comply.
If it had enforceability, they would explicitly cite laws to that effect in the subpoena itself. If the subpoena does not have that, it’s almost assuredly unenforceable.
Isn’t an “administrative subpoena” literally just a letter from an agency that says “give us this pretty please” with no actual enforceability at all?
Subpoenas, generally speaking, do not require a signature of a judge and aren’t subject to the same scrutiny as a warrant.
Subpoenas are issued against third parties (in this case Google) to compel the release of information. Google can fight the subpoena in court, but they generally don’t.
The enforceability only comes if Google decided not to comply, at which point they could offer to sell the information to the government or a judge ruled that Google must comply.
Again, most companies comply because they often lack the incentive to not comply.
Today you learned what a subpoena actually is:
https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/law-101-legal-guide-forensic-expert/subpoenas-vs-promises-appear/legal-requirements-subpoenas
If it had enforceability, they would explicitly cite laws to that effect in the subpoena itself. If the subpoena does not have that, it’s almost assuredly unenforceable.