Did you buy a beanie from REI recently? The Department of Homeland Security might be looking for you. New court filings reveal that Homeland Security Investigations agents subpoenaed the outdoor retailer in March, demanding transaction information for every person in the greater Minneapolis–St. Paul area who purchased a specific dark green beanie from the company since 2024. The subpoena is part of a broader federal lawsuit against 39 people who attended a protest at a church whose pastor also worked as an acting ICE field office director. The implications stretch far beyond a single clothing item: the case exposes how the Trump administration has weaponized an obscure customs law tool to conduct mass surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight.
The Green Beanie Dragnet: How a Winter Accessory Became a Government Investigation Target
The subpoena served to REI demanded the names, addresses, payment methods, and transaction histories of all customers in the Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area who purchased the Coal brand “The Uniform Tall Knit Cuff Beanie” in dark green since January 2024. REI did not respond to questions about whether it complied or how many people are affected. The filings are part of a lawsuit against 39 individuals who, according to the government, interrupted a service at a St. Paul church to protest the pastor’s role as an acting ICE field office director. Among the defendants are former CNN host Don Lemon and journalist Georgia Fort, who were covering the event. The government alleges that the protesters unlawfully disrupted the church service and violated federal law.
The subpoena to REI was one of 92 sent by HSI as part of the investigation. Other recipients included social media platforms, airlines, telecom providers, a car rental company, and a state employment agency. At least one subpoena to an unnamed airline went further: it asked not only for past flight records of a defendant but also requested that the airline provide a “lookout notification” for any future travel booked by that individual. The US Attorney’s Office in Minnesota declined to explain why it was necessary to identify every REI customer in the region who bought the beanie, especially since the same product is sold through other retailers.
What Are 1509 Customs Summonses? The Legal Tool Bypassing Courts
A 1509 customs summons is a legal demand issued by Homeland Security Investigations agents under the Tariff Act of 1930. It is designed to request information related to imports and exports—such as shipping manifests or customs declarations. Unlike a traditional subpoena from a grand jury or a warrant issued by a judge, a 1509 summons does not require any judicial approval. The agent need only certify that the information is relevant to a customs law enforcement matter. Once issued, the recipient company is often prohibited from disclosing the existence of the summons to anyone, including the person whose data is being sought. This secrecy can last for years, leaving targets unaware that their personal information has been handed over to the government.
Since the start of the Trump administration, DHS has expanded the use of 1509 summonses far beyond their original purpose. News organizations have documented a pattern of the agency using them to unmask online critics, identify protesters, and collect data on journalists and activists. The total number of 1509 summonses sent since January 2025 is unknown, as companies are typically gagged from revealing them. When the public has learned about them, it is usually because the target contested the summons in court—either because the company ignored the secrecy request and notified the target, or because the target discovered it after the fact through other means.
How a Customs Tool Became a Surveillance Weapon
The legal mechanism is straightforward. An HSI agent fills out a form, signs it, and sends it to a company. The company must comply or face civil penalties. There is no judge, no prosecutor, no adversarial hearing. The only check is that the information must be “necessary” to enforce customs laws, but the definition of that term has been stretched. In practice, agents have used the summons to demand social media records, phone call logs, email metadata, and financial transaction histories—all under the guise of import and export investigations. The REI subpoena is a stark example: the government claims that identifying buyers of a specific green beanie is relevant to a customs investigation, even though the beanie is a domestic product and the alleged crime—disrupting a church service—has no connection to imports or exports.
From Import Records to Call Logs: The Expanding Scope of DHS Summonses
The Minnesota case is not an isolated incident. Court documents show that the same 92 summonses targeted a wide range of entities. Telecom providers were asked for call and text message logs. Social media companies were asked for account details, IP addresses, and private messages. Airlines were asked for passenger manifests and future travel alerts. One of the most alarming revelations came from Georgia Fort, a journalist and defendant. Her attorneys wrote in a court filing that they were “stunned” to discover that the government had obtained six months of Fort’s call and text records from T-Mobile using a 1509 summons. Neither T-Mobile nor the government ever notified Fort. The summons was sent in secret, and the data was handed over without any legal challenge.
Fort’s case illustrates the vulnerability of anyone who might be caught in a government dragnet. The government did not need to show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. It simply asserted that the information was relevant to a customs investigation. The same logic could apply to anyone who purchased a green beanie at REI in Minneapolis—a person who may have no connection to the protest, no criminal record, and no involvement in any alleged wrongdoing. The government has not explained why it needed data on every purchaser, nor why it chose REI over other retailers.
Corporate Compliance and the Fear of Regulatory Retaliation
When a company receives a 1509 summons, it faces a difficult choice. Comply, and risk betraying customer trust and potentially violating privacy laws. Refuse, and risk legal penalties or regulatory retaliation from the government. A recent letter from Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Pramila Jayapal noted that big tech companies sometimes ignore the government’s request for secrecy when not legally required, but companies in more heavily regulated sectors—such as telecom, airlines, and financial services—have told Congress that they complied out of fear of retaliation. DHS can impose penalties, revoke licenses, or launch audits of non-compliant firms. The asymmetry of power leaves little room for resistance.
REI, a consumer-facing retailer with a reputation for progressive values, may have felt compelled to comply. The company has not publicly stated whether it challenged the summons or negotiated its scope. The lack of transparency is itself a problem: without knowing how many customers were affected, those individuals cannot take steps to protect their privacy or seek legal recourse. The summonses are also issued without any requirement to notify the data subject, leaving people in the dark indefinitely.
Senator Wyden Condemns ‘Absurd’ Fishing Expedition
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has been one of the most vocal critics of the administration’s use of 1509 summonses. “It’s flat-out absurd for DHS to demand REI search two years of customer data as part of Trump’s campaign against the people of Minneapolis,” Wyden said. “Customs summonses only allow DHS to request information directly related to compliance with customs laws, not to conduct unending fishing expeditions into the lives of people critical of Donald Trump.”
Wyden and Representative Jayapal sent a joint letter to the Government Accountability Office and the Supreme Court, raising concerns about the non-disclosure requirements that accompany many 1509 summonses. They argued that the secrecy provisions violate the First Amendment and the right to due process, particularly when the target is a journalist or activist. The letter also noted that some companies have told Congress they comply with secrecy orders even when not legally required, out of fear of government retaliation.
What the REI Subpoena Means for Privacy and Civil Liberties
The REI subpoena is a case study in how the government can use a narrow legal tool to conduct mass surveillance. The request for “all persons” in a metropolitan area who purchased a specific product is a textbook example of a dragnet—a search that sweeps up vast amounts of data about innocent people in the hope of finding a few suspects. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but the 1509 summons bypasses that protection because it is not considered a search. It is an administrative demand, not a judicial warrant. This distinction has allowed DHS to collect data on tens of thousands of Americans without any individualized suspicion.
Legal scholars and privacy advocates have called for reform. The simplest fix would be to require judicial oversight for any 1509 summons that seeks data about US persons. Another would be to mandate that the target be notified within a reasonable time, unless the government can demonstrate a compelling need for secrecy. The courts have also begun to push back. In some cases, judges have quashed 1509 summonses that were overly broad or that exceeded the scope of customs law. But those cases are rare, and the government often withdraws the summons before a court can rule.
The broader political context cannot be ignored. The Trump administration has repeatedly used the tools of the state to target its perceived enemies. The REI subpoena is part of a pattern that includes demands for Google to surrender data on Canadians who criticized ICE, requests for Instagram account details of activists, and subpoenas to nonprofits and journalists. The use of 1509 summonses has accelerated since 2025, and the number of people affected is likely in the hundreds of thousands. Yet the public knows only a fraction of these cases because of the secrecy rules.
The green beanie subpoena may seem like a minor detail in a sprawling lawsuit, but it represents a fundamental question about the limits of government power. If the government can demand the names of everyone who bought a winter hat in a major city, what can it not demand? The answer is uncertain, but one thing is clear: the tool is being used in ways its creators never intended. The future of the 1509 summons will depend on whether courts, Congress, or the public decide to draw a line. Until then, anyone who buys a beanie—or posts a comment, or attends a protest—should assume the government may be watching.
