The Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic scored a big win for public scrutiny of ICE and its agents in a decision issued on October 8 in federal court in the Northern District of New York. In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Brindisi ruled that certain critical judicial documents must be unsealed in a case involving the arrest of Marvin Aguilar-Garcia for assaulting a federal officer during an immigration arrest. The decision came in response to a motion to intervene in the case filed by the Clinic on behalf of its client Advance Publications, Inc., publisher of the community newspaper The Post-Standard and its website Syracuse.com.
Our client asked a simple question: why did the government drop this case five days before the scheduled trial date? Today’s decision brings us much closer to an answer.
Michael Grygiel, co-counsel, partner at Foley Hoag
The motion by Advance Publications sought the unsealing of case records that would shed light on why the U.S. Attorney ultimately sought to dismiss the case against Aguilar-Garcia and would make public the fact that the government had, prior to seeking dismissal of the indictment, filed a superseding indictment to which the grand jury returned a “no true bill,” meaning it had found insufficient evidence to support the charge.
Judge Brindisi granted Advance Publications’ motion in part. He ordered the unsealing of documents that referenced social media evidence about Border Patrol agents that could have been used to challenge their credibility. That evidence included the agents’ membership in “I’m 10-15,” a private Facebook group for Border Patrol agents that drew national scrutiny for posts joking about migrant deaths. The Court allowed only narrowly tailored redactions of personal identifying information from those documents. It rejected the government’s arguments that the agents’ privacy, and the risk of discouraging officers from reporting such information in the future, justified keeping the filings fully sealed.
The Court also ordered the disclosure of an important aspect of the prosecution that was previously under seal. Shortly before trial, the government had asked the same grand jury that indicted Aguilar-Garcia to approve a superseding indictment. The superseding indictment changed the weapon involved in the alleged assault of the agent from a “book” to an “object.” The grand jury declined and returned a “no true bill.” Having found no governing precedent on the question, Judge Brindisi concluded that the no true bill should not be kept secret from the public. The Judge did rule that the grand jury transcripts and deliberations should remain sealed. The Court gave the government and Aguilar-Garcia 14 days to propose redacted versions of the remaining sealed filings, including the U.S. Attorney’s letter seeking dismissal. It also directed the Clerk to add three missing files to the public docket.
“Our client asked a simple question: why did the government drop this case five days before the scheduled trial date? Today’s decision brings us much closer to an answer. Courts work in the open, and that principle doesn’t change because a case involves immigration enforcement,” said Michael Grygiel, the Clinic’s co-counsel on the case, a partner at Foley Hoag, and adjunct professor at Cornell Law School.
Read more about the case from Syracuse.com:
Syracuse.com goes to court to unseal documents in suspicious immigration arrest – syracuse.com
Clinic Sues ICE and USCIS on Behalf of Nonprofit Newsroom Documented
The Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic sued U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on September 29 on behalf of Documented, a New York nonprofit news outlet, and journalists Lam Thuy Vo and Max Siegelbaum. It is the Clinic’s latest action on behalf of journalists covering one of the most consequential issues of the day: how federal agencies are carrying out the administration’s immigration policies and what that enforcement means for local communities.
The complaint on behalf of Documented, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, seeks access to an updated copy of a USCIS dataset on asylum applications, as well as closing memos on certain investigations into alleged misconduct by DHS agents. The asylum dataset offers one of the few public windows into how the asylum system is changing in real time, and the closing memos would show how DHS responds when its own agents are accused of misconduct.
Documented’s community-driven reporting has deepened public understanding of the issues immigrants face and shaped immigration policy — work that depends on access to the very government records the agencies are now withholding.
“When agencies stall lawful requests and manufacture obstacles that appear nowhere in the statute, they aren’t just stonewalling journalists. They’re keeping the public in the dark about decisions that affect real people’s lives.”
Michael Linhorst, Clinic’s local journalism attorney
In October 2025, Vo filed a Freedom of Information Act request to USCIS asking for an updated copy of the database, which the agency had produced only after Vo filed a FOIA suit the first time. A year later, Vo’s request is still stuck at No. 187 in a growing queue, where it has sat since February 5.
In November 2025, Siegelbaum filed a FOIA request with ICE seeking documents related to investigations into allegations of DHS agent misconduct. ICE refused, calling the request too broad.
“This case is about the public’s right to understand what its government is doing — from how it treats people seeking asylum to how it polices misconduct within its own ranks,” said Michael Linhorst, the Clinic’s local journalism attorney. “When agencies stall lawful requests and manufacture obstacles that appear nowhere in the statute, they aren’t just stonewalling journalists. They’re keeping the public in the dark about decisions that affect real people’s lives.”
Clinic alumnus Alexander Venditti ‘25, an attorney at Jones Day, is co-counsel on the case.
Clinic Sues Orchard Park Police Over Records of ICE Collaboration
On July 30, the First Amendment Clinic sued the Town of Orchard Park and Orchard Park Police Department on behalf of its client, Investigative Post (iPost), a Buffalo-based nonprofit newsroom. The suit challenges the town’s blanket refusal to release incident records – records that are subject to New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) and are routinely disclosed to the press and the public.
iPost requested every incident or arrest report since January 1, 2024, that mentions ICE, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, or a subject’s immigration status, as well as reports from any scene where Orchard Park police worked alongside those agencies during an arrest. iPost has covered the ongoing collaboration between these federal agencies and local law enforcement in western New York, including police departments in Cheektowaga, Lewiston, North Tonawanda, and Amherst, and sheriff’s offices in Erie and Niagara.
By backing local journalists in their fight for access, the Clinic is helping communities hold government public officials accountable.
Heather Murray, associate director of the Clinic and managing attorney of its Local Journalism Project
In February, OPPD denied iPost reporter J. Dale Shoemaker’s FOIL request, claiming the release could interfere with present or future judicial proceedings. When iPost appealed with help from the Clinic, the Town of Orchard Park denied it again, this time switching to an exemption meant to protect IT systems from electronic attacks.
“Immigration enforcement is unfolding in our own communities, frequently alongside local police, and the public deserves to know how,” said Heather Murray, associate director of the Clinic and managing attorney of its Local Journalism Project. “By backing local journalists in their fight for access, the Clinic is helping communities hold government public officials accountable.”
