Except that it literally happens all the time, mostly by local agencies. But this happens to be news because it's ICE, and everyone hates ICE. It's not that hard to see the click-bait selective reporting.

That still sounds worth the coverage. Why are these agencies wasting tax payer money on these? They clearly have too much budget

I suspect subpoenaing information is far cheaper than seeking warrants to perform physical investigation, even before you consider the investigation.

Defending the subpoena is only expensive if they defend it.

"this happens to be news because it's ICE"

Exactly. I don't see why that justifies the dismissiveness.

> I don't see why that justifies the dismissiveness.

Because it's click-bait selective reporting that stokes outrage. (Case in point: Just take a look at how I'm getting spam downvoted after outlining my position fairly straightforwardly.)

You’re getting downvoted because your position is absurd on its face. Just because subpoenas are likely to be dismissed does not make them unworthy of reporting, and arguably quite the opposite - particularly when it is a major federal agency doing the subpoenaing rather than some small town sheriff.

A subpoena is expensive and onerous to fight. Yes, Buzzfeed has the resources to do so. Does your local paper? To dismiss the power and newsworthiness of a subpoena from a major federal agency with all of the financial and human resources (funded by you the taxpayer!) that such position implies is cynical beyond belief. To then further dismiss the criticism of that view as “spam” is revealing.

Kind of jarring to read this kind of misinformation here on HN. This is not true. Even as a non-lawyer, I know that you can literally just ignore it and go to the contempt hearing (where the judge will most likely side with the news outlet).

Yeah that's exactly what attorneys say about legal requests all the time. "Oh just ignore it, no need to prepare, the judge will see it your way". Then they write you a check to thank you for saving them from boredom. </sarcasm>

Have you ever retained an attorney for any legal issue whatsoever? From my experience, your comment is the grave misinformation.

> Even as a non-lawyer, I know that you can literally just ignore it and go to the contempt hearing (where the judge will most likely side with the news outlet).

> Even as a non-lawyer

> non-lawyer

Hey @dvt, this is a pretty bad look. I'm not an attorney; I've learned well enough through absurd-on-face comments of my own not to give legal advice when I'm out of my depth... or at all.

This is the position you're in.

> not to give legal advice when I'm out of my depth

Maybe you're confused, I'm not giving any legal advice. First of all, there's no one to give legal advice to; but second of all, it's purely a procedural claim. It's like saying "if you don't pay your traffic ticket, your driver's license might get suspended." Similarly, if you ignore a subpoena, you'll go to a contempt hearing where you'll make your case to a judge.

How that constitutes "legal advice" is beyond me, it's simply a brute fact.

And many times have you been subpoenaed, exactly?