Skip to content

DHS Administrative Subpoenas: NY Senator Pushes Back on Warrantless Data Requests

New York State Senator Zellnor Myrie is investigating whether the Department of Homeland Security used administrative subpoenas — which don't require.

By THEYDIDNTASK
DHS Administrative Subpoenas: NY Senator Pushes Back on Warrantless Data Requests
DHS Administrative Subpoenas: NY Senator Pushes Back on Warrantless Data Requests

TL;DR

  • —The core question behind the inquiry is simple and stark: can a federal agency reach into your bank and phone records without a warrant, and without telling you?
  • —"It's not the job of a federal agency to try to pressure people into political conformity," Myrie said, describing the concern that such requests may be intended to intimidate people and discourage political dissent.
  • —Administrative subpoenas are a long-standing legal tool — federal agencies can issue them without a judge's prior approval, though courts can later review and enforce them.
The Question Being Asked The core question behind the inquiry is simple and stark: can a federal agency reach into your bank and phone records without a warrant, and without telling you? Senator Myrie's letter asserts that DHS has used administrative warrants — which do not require judicial approval — to obtain personal or private information from third parties since at least January 2025. He's pressing the companies named in his letter on two fronts: how they evaluate government demands for customer information, and how they notify users when their data is disclosed. "Your phone records, your bank records, other private records subpoenaed, asked for without a judicial warrant." — Sen. Zellnor Myrie, describing what his office is examining. "It's not the job of a federal agency to try to pressure people into political conformity," Myrie said, describing the concern that such requests may be intended to intimidate people and discourage political dissent. He said he'll seek legislation to protect New Yorkers if his office's findings warrant it. The Broader Context Administrative subpoenas are a long-standing legal tool — federal agencies can issue them without a judge's prior approval, though courts can later review and enforce them. The Right to Financial Privacy Act generally restricts government access to financial records while allowing specified mechanisms, including administrative subpoenas, which can carry notice and an opportunity to challenge. The legal process and any notice provided are precisely the contested questions in Myrie's inquiry. But the context around DHS's use of them has drawn mounting scrutiny: Former officials and experts estimate DHS issues thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of these subpoenas each year. The Washington Post and The New York Times have reported DHS issued hundreds of subpoenas to companies — including Google, Reddit, Discord, and Meta — involving accounts that criticized ICE or identified ICE agents. This isn't the first challenge: 26 Democratic members of Congress previously wrote to major tech and telecom CEOs asking how they respond to, track, and comply with DHS administrative subpoenas. Older programs echo the pattern: court documents cited by EPIC describe the Transaction Records Analysis Center, a program that collected and distributed the financial records of millions of people — mostly immigrants — to DHS and more than 600 federal, state, and local law-enforcement agencies. Why This Isn't Just a Legal-Department Story This is a surveillance story about process, not capability. The government likely already has technical means; what's in question is whether the legal process respects the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement — and whether the people affected ever find out. Notice is the entire game: a subpoena you never hear about is a search you can't challenge. It's the same thread as much of our government-surveillance coverage: agencies consistently choose the path of least judicial friction, and the accountability mechanisms meant to restrain them — notice, oversight, independent review — are precisely what keep getting optimized away. What to Do Assume data requests are happening. You may not be notified that your records were obtained through an administrative subpoena; that's the systemic problem. Hedge your institution. Don't keep your entire financial and communications life in one or two opaque intermediaries — banks, brokers, and telecoms are the request targets. Support transparency bills. Require agencies to report subpoena volume, seek independent judicial review, and notify affected users. That's the legislative lever Myrie and others are pulling. Follow the companies' transparency reports. Tech firms do publish government-request data; watch whether they fight overbroad demands or quietly comply. The Bottom Line The "They Didn't Ask" question applies as much to governments as to companies: when your data is obtained without your knowledge or a judge's sign-off, nobody asked — and you never got to answer. The inquiry isn't about dismantling legitimate law enforcement; it's about insisting that the process written into the Constitution — a warrant, and notice — is not bypassed by an administrative form. A warrant requirement is the difference between a surveillance state and a lawful one, and it's worth defending in every forum where it's being quietly negotiated away.