Four protesters sued DHS and FBI over alleged unconstitutional DNA collection during ICE protests, claiming violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights. The lawsuit accuses federal agencies of seizing genetic samples from arrestees at the Broadview ICE facility, uploading profiles to government databases, and storing them permanently. Only one of 92 non-immigration arrests resulted in a conviction unrelated to protests, while two others faced dropped charges and two had no charges at all. Plaintiffs argue the DNA Act was misapplied, as Supreme Court precedent allows collection only for serious offenses with judicial oversight—a standard not met in their cases.

The DNA Act, expanded in 2006 to permit collection for any arrest, now fuels a national database called CODIS. Critics warn the law hasn’t kept pace with tech advancements, enabling access to sensitive genetic data beyond identification purposes. Illinois law imposes stricter limits, requiring DNA submission only for violent crimes post-judicial review. Protesters highlighted the absence of destruction protocols for DNA profiles, with expungement processes taking up to five years and costing taxpayers.

DHS and ICE face scrutiny for integrating DNA surveillance into broader tracking systems, including facial recognition apps like Mobile Fortify. The agencies reportedly aim to monitor protesters’ movements and affiliations, leveraging genetic data alongside location and social media surveillance. A January memo urged agents to capture “all images, license plates, identifications” during operations, while ICE doubled its workforce to 12,000 officers in a year. Legal challenges center on whether such mass collection deters lawful dissent, with plaintiffs warning of a “genetic database of lawful protesters.”

The case raises questions about constitutional limits on biometric surveillance and the balance between security and civil liberties. As DNA technology evolves, lawmakers face pressure to update outdated laws governing its use. The lawsuit underscores growing fears that federal agencies are weaponizing biometric data to suppress political opposition, transforming routine arrests into tools for long-term monitoring of activists.