TTPRADARA federal lawsuit filed September 10, 2026 accuses the Department of Homeland Security of revoking Global Entry membership as punishment for filming ICE operations, and of doing it as a matter of policy rather than isolated mistakes. The suit was filed by Minnesota resident Michael Khalili and Common Cause, represented by the Campaign Legal Center, in federal court in Washington, D.C. It names DHS, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and other agencies as defendants.
Khalili's Global Entry was cut off by email one day after ICE agents confronted him in Shakopee, Minnesota, for following and photographing them in March 2026. The notice offered no real explanation: "We regret to inform you that your membership in Global Entry has been revoked for the following reason(s): Your Global Entry has been revoked." It came back only after a HuffPost reporter asked DHS why, not because a formal appeal succeeded.
What the lawsuit alleges
The 94-page complaint argues Global Entry and TSA PreCheck revocation is one tool in a broader retaliation playbook against people who document immigration enforcement, alongside threats of arrest, use of force, and collection of observers' personal information. It cites seven Common Cause members in Maryland, Minnesota, and New Jersey, plus declarations from observers in Illinois, Maine, and Tennessee, arguing the pattern is systemic rather than a single bad call in Minnesota.
It also points to what happened after Khalili's Global Entry came back: records show 55 law-enforcement queries of his license plate, driver's license, or name and date of birth over the following four months, compared with two in prior years combined. The suit asks a court for a nationwide injunction barring DHS and DOJ from retaliating against ICE observers, and a declaration that lawful observation is not doxxing or a crime.
This isn't the first suit making the claim. Three women and the Electronic Privacy Information Center sued over the same pattern in July 2026, alleging DHS used facial recognition, license-plate readers, and body cameras to build files on people who filmed agents. One of those plaintiffs also got her Global Entry back only after a reporter called DHS.
CBP's public position, repeated to reporters covering the case, is that Trusted Traveler membership is only denied or revoked for criminal activity, customs or immigration violations, or failure to demonstrate low-risk status, and that lawful observation doesn't meet that standard. DHS separately said ICE "respects the First Amendment rights" of observers but will act against those who "interfere with or obstruct" operations, adding that obstructing law enforcement is a federal crime. Neither claim has been tested in court. The complaint is three days old at the time of writing: no ruling, no injunction, no change to how CBP actually processes revocations.
How little process actually happens before a revocation
Set the retaliation claim aside and look at what the Khalili case shows about the mechanics. There was no hearing, no notice of specific allegations, no chance to respond before his membership was pulled. The email cited a "reason" that was just the fact of the revocation restated. That's what a Global Entry revocation can look like from the member's side: a terse automated notice, then silence.
Reinstatement, in his case, didn't come from the appeal he'd already filed. It came after a journalist asked DHS to justify the decision. That's not a due-process channel any member can count on, and it's the detail that makes this case notable beyond the retaliation claim itself: the formal appeal and the actual outcome moved on entirely separate tracks.
The actual appeal path if you're cut off
Khalili also filed a separate appeal through CBP's Trusted Traveler Programs ombudsman, the reconsideration channel for members disputing a revocation. HuffPost reported that this process typically takes months to review. In his case, it was still pending well after his membership had already been restored through the press inquiry, meaning the official channel was overtaken by outside attention rather than resolving the dispute on its own.
That gap between "the formal channel exists" and "the formal channel is fast or reliably responsive" is the part no revocation notice tells you. If your Global Entry is revoked, the ombudsman reconsideration route is the actual mechanism available, and it's worth reading CBP's current guidance directly rather than relying on secondhand summaries, since specific filing details can change. TTPRadar's FAQ covers general Trusted Traveler Program mechanics, but it isn't a substitute for CBP's own process, and TTPRadar has no affiliation with CBP or DHS.
What this means if you use Global Entry
Nothing about CBP's revocation or appeal process has changed because of this filing. It's a complaint seeking a future injunction, not a ruling, and CBP's stated revocation criteria (criminal activity, customs or immigration violations, failure to show low-risk status) remain the official rule as of this writing. What the case adds is documentation, now backed by two separate lawsuits and multiple named plaintiffs, that the gap between a revocation email and any real explanation can be wide, and that the fastest route back to membership has sometimes been press attention rather than the ombudsman process built for exactly this situation.
If your own Global Entry is ever revoked, keep the notice, keep records of any related enforcement contact, and file the ombudsman appeal promptly even though the reconsideration process typically takes months. For everything else about how the Trusted Traveler Programs actually work, CBP's own pages remain the primary source, and TTPRadar's Global Entry guide library is a reasonable starting point if you want the surrounding process explained plainly.