A recently unsealed court transcript reveals that a judge in Chicago was asked to obscure the face of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, Shawn Byers, during a public court proceeding. Byers had taken extensive precautions to disconnect his identity from his image online to protect himself from alleged "bounties" on his head. However, it turned out that these bounties were largely fabricated by the government.
The ICE deputy field office director claimed there was a $50,000 bounty issued by cartels on him, as well as $10,000 for all his family members. He also stated that credible threats had been made against all senior ICE officials in Chicago, where he was the most senior agent on the ground. When asked when he learned about these threats, Byers replied it had been "about a week or so."
Despite objections from opposing counsel that court proceedings should be public, the judge ordered the courtroom sketch artist to blur Byers' facial features. However, someone apparently Googled his name and informed the judge that a simple search turned up his LinkedIn profile, complete with his photo, exact job title, and location in Chicago.
The judge called back the parties into closed session and said she felt "slightly foolish" trying to protect Byers when it was easy to find his picture and name online. She encouraged the attorney to advise ICE Deputy Director Shawn Byers that his name and photograph were readily available online.
This case is an example of how the government is using false narratives about threats against public officials, including immigration agents, to justify secrecy and obscuring their identities in court proceedings. The notion that naming public officials or drawing their faces for the record is "doxing" or otherwise improper is a fabrication perpetuated by the Trump administration.
Judges need to be more vigilant in demanding specifics, with evidence, about these alleged plots or threats. They also need to impose significant sanctions on lawyers and witnesses who mislead them, making pawns in the administration's anti-transparency objectives. The media must be similarly skeptical and not take the "threats" narrative at face value from an administration with a long record of misleading the public for its own political ends.
The Intercept is fighting back against these efforts to dismantle the free press, but it needs to grow its reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026. That's where you come in - helping us expand our reporting capacity will allow us to continue holding those in power accountable and providing fearless journalism that delivers the truth.
The ICE deputy field office director claimed there was a $50,000 bounty issued by cartels on him, as well as $10,000 for all his family members. He also stated that credible threats had been made against all senior ICE officials in Chicago, where he was the most senior agent on the ground. When asked when he learned about these threats, Byers replied it had been "about a week or so."
Despite objections from opposing counsel that court proceedings should be public, the judge ordered the courtroom sketch artist to blur Byers' facial features. However, someone apparently Googled his name and informed the judge that a simple search turned up his LinkedIn profile, complete with his photo, exact job title, and location in Chicago.
The judge called back the parties into closed session and said she felt "slightly foolish" trying to protect Byers when it was easy to find his picture and name online. She encouraged the attorney to advise ICE Deputy Director Shawn Byers that his name and photograph were readily available online.
This case is an example of how the government is using false narratives about threats against public officials, including immigration agents, to justify secrecy and obscuring their identities in court proceedings. The notion that naming public officials or drawing their faces for the record is "doxing" or otherwise improper is a fabrication perpetuated by the Trump administration.
Judges need to be more vigilant in demanding specifics, with evidence, about these alleged plots or threats. They also need to impose significant sanctions on lawyers and witnesses who mislead them, making pawns in the administration's anti-transparency objectives. The media must be similarly skeptical and not take the "threats" narrative at face value from an administration with a long record of misleading the public for its own political ends.
The Intercept is fighting back against these efforts to dismantle the free press, but it needs to grow its reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026. That's where you come in - helping us expand our reporting capacity will allow us to continue holding those in power accountable and providing fearless journalism that delivers the truth.
. I mean, a $50k bounty on someone just because they're working for ICE? That sounds like something straight out of a bad movie 
. And what's with all these "credible threats" that supposedly led to Byers' name being hidden from public records? Sounds like some BS to me 
.
. I mean, come on, a quick Google search and they could've seen his LinkedIn profile with his pic and everything 
. It's not exactly rocket science, you know? 
. Like, no, just because you're a public official doesn't mean you get special treatment 
. Transparency and accountability are key, imo 
.
. We need more journalists like that who aren't afraid to speak truth to power 
.
I'm kinda surprised a judge went ahead with blurring Byers' face like that. I mean, it's not exactly hard to find public info online, right? 
so some judge in Chicago just let a bunch of BS slide about bounties on an ICE agent's head... turns out all these "threats" were fabricated by the gov 
like what even is the point of that? 
and get this, some lawyer just Googled the guy's name and found his LinkedIn profile LOL 
. It just goes to show that politicians and admins will stop at nothing to keep their secrets safe, even if it means deceiving the public 
The thing is, the government could've just said "oh look, we have no threats" and saved everyone the trouble. But nope, let's create a narrative and hope it holds up.
It just reeks of politics. And yeah, I get it, judges need to be vigilant, but this whole thing seems like an overreaction. What's next, do we start blurting out everyone's socials in the courtroom too?