By Herman Legal Group (HLG) — Immigration & Public Accountability Guidance
Quick Answer
Yes—you can legally boycott companies that contract with ICE in the United States. Peaceful boycotts and public advocacy are generally protected by the First Amendment when they involve lawful, nonviolent persuasion. The legal risk comes from false factual claims, harassment or intimidation, and improper interference with business relationships, not from the boycott itself. This guide explains exactly what is safe, what is risky, and how to boycott ICE contractors legally in a way that is lawful and defensible.
Fast Facts / Key Takeaways
-
Peaceful boycotts are generally lawful in the United States.
-
Truth is your best legal protection when naming ICE contractors.
-
Defamation risk increases when you state accusations as fact without proof.
-
Harassment and intimidation are not protected activism.
-
Target policies and contracts, not individual employees.
-
Avoid “improper interference” with contracts and business relationships.
-
Use official records when you claim a company has ICE contracts.
-
If you receive a legal threat letter, pause and get legal advice before responding.
Boycotting ICE Contractors Is Usually Legal—But Not Everything People Call a “Boycott” Is Protected
A boycott is protected when it is peaceful and nonviolent
A “boycott” is typically a voluntary decision to stop buying from a business and to encourage others to make the same consumer choice. In many situations, that is protected speech and association—especially when it is part of public debate and civic participation.
A useful baseline rule:
If the action looks like lawful persuasion, it’s usually protected.
If the action looks like coercion, threats, or targeted harassment, the legal risk rises quickly.
The legal risk is not the boycott—it’s what you do while boycotting
In real life, people get sued (or threatened with lawsuits) because of:
-
Defamation (false statements of fact that harm reputation)
-
Tortious interference (improper disruption of business relationships or contracts)
-
Harassment / intimidation (targeted conduct that crosses from advocacy into unlawful pressure)
-
Trespass and disorderly conduct (especially during protests)
This is why the safest boycott strategies are fact-based, calm, documented, and non-personal.
The “Safe Boycott Checklist” (Do These Things)
1) Use verifiable facts—then link to proof
If you call a company an “ICE contractor,” your safest approach is to cite objective evidence from authoritative sources.
Start here:
If you can’t find proof in official databases, do not guess. Use neutral language like:
-
“Public reporting indicates…” (with a link)
-
“Contracting records appear to show…” (with a link)
-
“According to federal award data…” (with a link)
2) State values as opinion—and facts as facts
Your safest messaging separates:
-
Facts (provable statements supported by records), from
-
Opinions (your personal or organizational view)
Safer opinion framing:
-
“I oppose businesses that support ICE enforcement operations.”
-
“I am choosing not to spend money with companies tied to immigration detention.”
Safer fact framing:
-
“This company appears in federal award records as a contractor.”
3) Keep your boycott “consumer-choice based”
The cleanest boycott is a public message like:
-
“Here are the companies we are choosing not to purchase from.”
-
“Here are alternatives that do not appear tied to ICE contracting.”
This approach keeps the boycott grounded in voluntary market behavior.
4) Focus on transparency and policy—not personal targeting
You reduce legal risk when you:
-
criticize contracts and corporate decisions
-
ask for policy changes
-
demand public transparency
-
avoid naming or targeting non-public individuals (employees, family members, neighbors)
5) Use calm language—avoid inflammatory accusations
Do not describe companies with loaded claims that imply criminal wrongdoing unless you can prove it with official findings.
Avoid statements like:
-
“They are committing crimes.”
-
“They are trafficking people.”
-
“They are torturing immigrants.”
Use neutral phrasing like:
-
“They provide services connected to detention and enforcement contracts.”
-
“They receive revenue from ICE-linked contract work.”
-
“They support operational infrastructure used in immigration enforcement.”
The “Get-Sued” List (What NOT To Do)
1) Do not publish false factual claims (defamation risk)
Defamation is not “hurt feelings.” Defamation is typically about false statements of fact that can damage a person’s or business’s reputation.
High-risk statements include:
-
accusing a business of a crime without proof
-
claiming “they committed fraud” without verified findings
-
stating contract relationships as fact without documentation
Safe alternative:
Use documented facts and link directly to sources like USAspending.gov.
2) Do not threaten or intimidate people
Threats and intimidation are not “free speech.” They are legally dangerous and can create both civil and criminal exposure.
High-risk examples:
-
“We’ll ruin you.”
-
“You’ll be sorry.”
-
“We know where you live.”
-
“We’re coming for your employees.”
Safe alternative:
“Here is why we are boycotting, and here is what we are asking the company to do.”
3) Do not harass individual employees
Even when your goal is corporate accountability, direct pressure against non-public employees can create legal risk and reputational blowback.
Avoid:
-
calling personal cell phones
-
messaging family members
-
repeated unwanted contact after “stop contacting me”
-
publishing private identifying details
Safe alternative:
Contact official channels (public email, public corporate address, investor relations portal).
4) Do not trespass or disrupt private property access
You can protest lawfully, but stepping onto private property after being told not to, blocking entrances, or preventing customers from entering can trigger legal issues quickly.
Safe alternative:
Use lawful public spaces and follow local rules.
5) Do not coordinate unlawful conduct
HLG does not provide advice on illegal activity. Anything involving damage, sabotage, hacking, threats, or coercion is outside lawful advocacy and can create serious exposure.
What You Can Say Online Without Creating Defamation Problems
The safest model: “truth + citation + consumer choice”
If you want your content to hold up legally, use this formula:
-
A verifiable fact
-
A link to proof
-
A personal consumer decision
Example (safe structure):
-
“Federal award records list Company X as receiving ICE-related contract funding (link). I’m choosing not to buy from Company X.”
Fact vs. opinion: the difference that matters
-
Fact: “This company has an ICE contract.” (must be provable)
-
Opinion: “I don’t support companies that profit from detention.” (your view)
Risk increases when an “opinion” implies secret facts. For example:
-
“They’re corrupt.” (could imply undisclosed wrongdoing)
-
“They’re criminals.” (implies provable criminal conduct)
Safer alternative:
-
“I oppose the company’s decision to do business with ICE.”
Avoid absolute language that implies inside knowledge
Avoid:
-
“They definitely sold the weapons used in raids.”
-
“They caused deportations.”
Instead:
-
“They provide services that support ICE operations, according to public contracting records.”
The Safe Language Library (Copy/Paste Boycott Statements That Reduce Legal Risk)
This section is designed for people who want to boycott ICE contractors lawfully while reducing risk of defamation, harassment claims, or accusations of improper interference with business relationships. Boycotts and peaceful advocacy are generally protected when they remain nonviolent and lawful. The Supreme Court has recognized First Amendment protection for the nonviolent elements of a politically motivated boycott. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (Supreme Court)
Safest “ICE contractor” wording (fact + proof + consumer choice)
Use this format when your goal is accuracy and legal defensibility:
Template A (strongest)
“Public federal contracting records list [Company Name] as receiving obligations tied to ICE or DHS contracting. I’m choosing not to buy from this company, and I’m encouraging others to consider alternatives.”
Proof sources:
Template B (if the relationship is indirect or unclear)
“Based on publicly available award data, [Company Name] appears connected to federal contracting that supports immigration enforcement operations. I oppose this business decision and am choosing other vendors.”
Safest social media caption (short, quotable, low-risk)
Use this when you want maximum shareability with minimum legal exposure:
“Boycotts are legal when they are peaceful and fact-based. If you share my concerns, consider choosing alternatives and requesting transparency from companies doing business with ICE.”
For protest rights basics, see:
Safest boycott call-to-action (non-coercive, non-threatening)
This is “pressure” without intimidation:
“I’m asking people to make a voluntary consumer choice: don’t spend money with companies tied to ICE contracts. Share verified sources, stay peaceful, and avoid targeting employees.”
Safest protest sign wording (protected speech, lower escalation)
Avoid language that reads like a threat or a promise of harm. Keep signs short and values-based.
Low-risk sign ideas
-
“Peaceful Boycott”
-
“Transparency Now”
-
“Stop ICE Contracting”
-
“Public Contracts = Public Accountability”
-
“Choose Alternatives”
For lawful protest boundaries, see:
Safest company accountability message (email/letter script)
Use this to demand transparency without raising defamation or harassment risk:
Subject: Request for transparency about enforcement-related contracting
“Hello,
I’m requesting transparency regarding any current or past contracts, subcontracts, or services your company has provided in connection with ICE or DHS enforcement operations. If your company is listed in public federal award databases, please clarify the scope of services and whether any safeguards or limitations apply. Thank you.”
Safest message to journalists (neutral, source-first)
This is built for reporters, researchers, and policymakers who want documentation:
“Hi [Name],
Public federal award records list [Company Name] as receiving obligations tied to ICE or DHS contracting. I’m sharing the source link for verification and would welcome reporting on what services were provided and whether the company has renewed or expanded that work. Here is the public award record: [link].”
“Opinion vs. fact” language that reduces defamation risk
A major legal mistake is writing opinions in a way that implies hidden facts. The Supreme Court has explained that simply labeling a statement as “opinion” does not automatically prevent a defamation claim when the statement implies a provably false factual assertion. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (Supreme Court)
Safer opinion phrasing
-
“In my view, this is unethical.”
-
“I oppose this corporate policy.”
-
“I’m choosing other vendors.”
Higher-risk factual phrasing (avoid unless proven)
-
“They committed crimes.”
-
“They are corrupt.”
-
“They are trafficking people.”
-
“They lied to the government.”
What NOT to say (and safer rewrites)
These are common phrases that trigger legal threats:
Do NOT say
-
“Company X is committing crimes.”
-
“Company X is abusive.”
-
“Company X is responsible for deportations.”
-
“Company X sold the weapons used in raids.”
Say instead
-
“Public contracting data lists Company X as providing goods/services connected to ICE operations.”
-
“I oppose the company’s decision to participate in enforcement contracting.”
-
“I’m choosing alternatives and encouraging others to do the same.”
Protest and digital safety (simple, legal-friendly)
If someone is attending a protest or public demonstration, digital privacy and device safety are often overlooked. For practical, mainstream guidance, see:
Tortious Interference Explained (And How to Avoid It)
What “tortious interference” means in plain English
Tortious interference is a legal concept where someone is accused of wrongfully disrupting another person’s or company’s business relationship or contract.
Key idea:
You can encourage consumers to walk away.
You should not use improper pressure to force someone else to break contracts.
Safe pressure vs. improper pressure
Lower-risk pressure
-
“Don’t buy from Company X.”
-
“Here are alternatives.”
-
“Write a polite letter requesting contract transparency.”
Higher-risk pressure
-
contacting customers with threatening language
-
encouraging harassment or coordinated intimidation
-
making false allegations to “force” cancellation
A practical safe rule
If your campaign stays within:
-
truthful statements,
-
lawful persuasion,
-
voluntary market choices,
you are typically in safer territory.
Protest, Picketing, and Speech: Boundaries People Get Wrong
Peaceful protest has legal limits (even when speech is protected)
The First Amendment protects speech, but it does not erase:
-
trespass rules,
-
permit requirements,
-
local ordinances,
-
harassment laws,
-
lawful orders from police.
For practical, legally grounded protest safety guidance, see:
Public sidewalk advocacy is different from disrupting a private business
In general:
-
public sidewalks = more legal space for protest
-
inside private property or blocking entrances = higher legal risk
Repeated targeted contact can become harassment
A boycott is safest when it targets:
-
corporate policy
-
corporate decision-making
-
public contracting transparency
not individuals’ private lives.
Extra Guidance for Immigrants, Families, Students, and Noncitizens
Boycotting is not “immigration law,” but immigration consequences can arise from arrests, even when a case ends without conviction.
A calm, practical rule for noncitizens:
-
Avoid confrontation.
-
Avoid conduct that could trigger arrest.
-
Keep advocacy peaceful and lawful.
-
If there is concern about status risk, consult counsel first.
Related guidance (HLG internal resources):
A Legally Safer Boycott Toolkit (Copy-and-Use Templates)
Template 1: Safe public statement (facts + source + choice)
“Public federal award records show Company X receiving funding connected to ICE contracts. I’m choosing not to purchase from Company X, and I’m asking the company to disclose its current ICE-related contract work.”
Add proof:
Template 2: Safe consumer call-to-action (no threats)
“If you share these concerns, consider choosing alternatives and contacting the company respectfully with a request for transparency.”
Template 3: Safe company letter (neutral, defensible tone)
Subject: Request for transparency regarding federal enforcement contracting
“Hello,
I am writing as a member of the public requesting transparency regarding any contracts, subcontracting, or services your company provides that support immigration detention or enforcement operations. If your company is listed in federal award databases, please clarify the scope of services and whether the company has considered adopting limitations or safeguards. Thank you for your time.”
Template 4: Safe journalist outreach
“Hi [Name],
Federal award records list Company X as receiving ICE-linked contract funds. I’m sharing the source link and requesting clarification on what services were provided and whether there are current renewals. Here is the public award record: [link].”
The Boycott Lawsuit Risk Heat Map (Low / Medium / High)
Most boycott-related legal exposure is avoidable. The safest boycotts are truthful, peaceful, non-harassing, and consumer-choice based, consistent with First Amendment protections for nonviolent political boycotts. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (Supreme Court)
Low Risk Actions (generally safest)
These actions are most likely to stay protected and defensible when done calmly and accurately:
-
Boycotting purchases (simply choosing not to buy)
-
Posting verifiable contract evidence with links to public sources
-
Asking companies for transparency via official contact channels
-
Publishing a fact-checked “vendor list” with a correction process
-
Peaceful protests on public sidewalks where lawful
-
Writing opinion commentary clearly framed as opinion (not accusations)
Core verification sources:
Medium Risk Actions (safe only if carefully done)
These actions are often lawful, but become legally risky if phrasing turns into accusations or pressure becomes coercive:
-
Social media posts naming companies “working with ICE” (must be sourced)
-
Negative reviews encouraging a boycott (must stay factual and non-defamatory)
-
Organized campaigns that contact executives or investor relations (must avoid harassment)
-
“Call your employer to demand change” messaging (must remain voluntary, non-threatening)
-
Posting screenshots or excerpts of contract records (must avoid misleading edits)
Protest boundaries to keep in mind:
High Risk Actions (common lawsuit triggers)
These actions frequently trigger lawsuits, restraining orders, arrests, or serious legal threats:
-
Publishing false factual accusations (especially crimes, fraud, violence, trafficking claims)
-
Targeting employees personally (home visits, personal messages, contacting family)
-
Repeated unwanted contact after a person/company says “stop”
-
Coordinating harassment campaigns (“flood them,” “ruin them,” “destroy them”)
-
Blocking entrances or disrupting private business operations
-
Trespassing, vandalism, sabotage, hacking, or threats
-
Contacting a contractor’s customers with coercive pressure or false claims
A common legal red line: you do not have the right to block entrances or physically harass people. ACLU Ohio — Protesters: Know Your Rights
One-Minute Decision Tree (“Before You Post, Ask This”)
Use these questions before publishing anything that names a specific company or calls for action.
-
Is my key claim verifiable?
If no, rewrite it as opinion or remove it. -
Do I have a credible source link?
Use government sources first, like USAspending.gov. -
Am I accusing a crime, fraud, or violence?
If yes, stop—those claims require official proof. -
Am I targeting a company policy—or an individual person?
Target policy and public contracts, not employees. -
Would a neutral reader see this as persuasion or intimidation?
If it reads like intimidation, rewrite immediately. -
Am I encouraging lawful behavior only?
If your post implies threats, harassment, blocking access, or illegal conduct, delete it.
The safest “viral” boycott formula (high share, lower risk)
If you want mass sharing without legal exposure, use:
-
One verified fact
-
One link
-
One values statement
-
One voluntary call-to-action
Example:
“Public contract records list Company X as receiving DHS/ICE-linked obligations (link). I oppose this and I’m choosing alternatives. If you agree, consider doing the same peacefully and lawfully.”
Scenario-Based Risk Analysis (Low / Medium / High)
Scenario 1: “I want to post ‘Company X works with ICE’ on Instagram.”
Risk Level: Low (if sourced) / Medium (if unsourced)
Why
-
Low risk if the claim is factual and linked to proof
-
Medium risk if it is based on rumor or assumption
Safer alternatives
-
Link directly to USAspending.gov
-
Use “appears to” only if you are relying on a database entry you can’t fully interpret
-
Avoid accusations about motives or crimes
Scenario 2: “I want to leave a 1-star review telling people to stop buying.”
Risk Level: Medium
Why
-
Reviews can create legal risk if they include false statements of fact
-
Aggressive claims can be framed as defamatory if unsupported
Safer alternatives
-
Keep reviews factual and brief
-
Avoid stating “illegal conduct” or “fraud” unless proven
-
Focus on consumer values: “I’m choosing not to buy from this company due to its ICE contracting ties.”
Scenario 3: “I want to email the company’s customers and tell them to cancel.”
Risk Level: High
Why
-
This can raise tortious interference claims if handled recklessly
-
High risk if it includes threats, false accusations, or pressure tactics
Safer alternatives
-
Publish a public explainer with citations
-
Encourage voluntary consumer choice
-
Ask journalists or policymakers to investigate using public records
Scenario 4: “I want to publish a public list of ICE contractors.”
Risk Level: Low (if documented) / High (if sloppy)
Why
-
Lists can be lawful and useful when properly sourced
-
Risk spikes if you misidentify companies, exaggerate, or imply crimes
Safer alternatives
-
Include citations to USAspending.gov
-
Use careful terms like “listed in federal award records”
-
Add a correction policy: “If you believe this is inaccurate, contact us.”
HLG internal linking opportunity:
Scenario 5: “I want to protest outside a contractor’s facility.”
Risk Level: Medium
Why
-
Peaceful protest is often lawful, but arrests can occur from misunderstandings, trespass, or disorderly conduct allegations
Safer alternatives
-
Stay on public property
-
Avoid blocking entrances
-
Avoid personal targeting of employees
-
Keep messaging factual and calm
Scenario 6: “I want to contact employees at their homes and pressure them to quit.”
Risk Level: High
Why
-
This can become harassment or intimidation
-
It is more likely to trigger police involvement or legal claims
-
It is difficult to defend as “consumer boycott” activity
Safer alternatives
-
Focus on executives and official business channels
-
Use public records and policy-based demands
-
Avoid individuals entirely unless they are public-facing decision-makers
FAQ
1) Is it legal to boycott an ICE contractor?
Yes. In many situations, peaceful consumer boycotts and public advocacy are lawful and protected as free speech and association. The risk is not the boycott itself, but false accusations, harassment, threats, or improper interference with business relationships.
2) Can a company sue me for organizing a boycott?
A company can file a lawsuit for many reasons, but the most common boycott-related claims involve defamation, harassment, or unlawful interference. A fact-based, nonviolent boycott that avoids threats and sticks to verifiable claims is far easier to defend.
3) What is defamation in a boycott context?
Defamation usually involves a false statement of fact that harms someone’s reputation. Calling a company “evil” is opinion. Claiming the company committed a crime, lied in contracts, or engaged in illegal activity without proof creates much higher legal risk.
4) Can I say “this company works with ICE”?
Yes, if it is true and you can support it with reliable proof. The safest approach is to link to official contracting records such as USAspending.gov.
5) Is it safe to post an “ICE contractor list” on my website?
It can be safe if the list is accurate, sourced, and neutrally worded. The list becomes risky if it includes speculation, exaggeration, or misidentifies companies. Include citations and an easy correction process.
6) Can I tell people not to shop at a contractor?
Yes. Encouraging voluntary consumer choices is typically safer than contacting the company’s clients with threats or pressure. Keep it calm, truthful, and nonviolent.
7) What is tortious interference?
Tortious interference is a legal claim alleging someone improperly disrupted a business relationship or contract. Consumer boycotts are usually lawful. Risk rises when someone uses threats, harassment, or false statements to force others to break agreements.
8) Can I contact a contractor’s customers to pressure them?
That is higher risk. If the message contains threats, false accusations, or coercive language, it can create legal exposure. A safer approach is publishing a public explainer with sources and encouraging voluntary consumer choices.
9) Can I protest outside a business that contracts with ICE?
Often yes, but protests have legal boundaries. Trespassing, blocking entrances, or harassing individuals increases risk. Stay peaceful, remain on public property, and comply with lawful orders.
10) Can I boycott if I’m not a U.S. citizen?
Boycotting is generally lawful, but noncitizens should avoid arrest risk because immigration consequences can arise from arrests and criminal allegations. The safest approach is peaceful, nonconfrontational advocacy.
11) What if I get a cease-and-desist letter?
Do not panic and do not immediately retract truthful statements. Preserve your sources, avoid further escalation, and consult a lawyer. Many demand letters are designed to intimidate, but they must be evaluated carefully.
12) Can I post about ICE contractors on social media?
Yes, but be careful with wording. Use sourced facts, avoid criminal accusations, avoid targeting employees, and avoid threats. The safest posts are short, factual, and citation-backed.
13) Can I call a company “complicit” or “responsible for deportations”?
That type of language may be interpreted as implying facts or causation you cannot prove. A safer approach is describing what the company does, what contracts exist, and why you personally oppose that business decision.
14) What is the safest boycott message format?
A safe format is: verified fact + citation + consumer choice. Example: “Public award records list Company X as receiving ICE-related contract funds (link). I’m choosing not to buy from them.”
15) When should I consult a lawyer before posting?
If you plan to name individuals, accuse wrongdoing, contact customers/partners, publish a contractor database, or respond to a legal threat letter, legal review is strongly recommended.
What This Means Going Forward
Boycotting ICE contractors can be a lawful, effective form of public accountability when it stays peaceful, factual, and non-harassing. The safest approach is to rely on public records, describe claims carefully, and avoid pressure tactics that can be framed as intimidation or improper interference. If you are planning a public campaign—or you’ve received a legal threat letter—legal review can reduce risk and prevent avoidable mistakes.
If you want help assessing boycott language, verifying contractor claims, or responding to a demand letter, you can speak with an attorney at Herman Legal Group here: Book a consultation.
Resource Directory: Trusted Legal Guidance on Lawful Protest, Boycotts, and Safe Advocacy
Herman Legal Group Resources
Use this article as a hub that links into HLG’s ICE corporate accountability ecosystem:
-
Companies That Supply ICE: How to Identify Them, Contact Them, and Organize a Lawful Boycott
-
Which Companies Are Facing Boycotts for Role in Trump’s Immigration Enforcement?
ACLU (Know Your Rights)
NAACP (Civil Rights + Protest Safety)
National Lawyers Guild (NLG) (Know Your Rights + Legal Observer Guidance)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) (Protest + Digital Safety)
Civil Rights Coalition Resource (Multi-Organization Safety Toolkit)
Additional Reputable Civil Rights Guidance
