Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ICEBlock App Developer Sues Trump Officials, Claims Apple Was Pressured to Remove App

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
70,270
41,876


The developer behind the ICEBlock app that Apple removed from the App Store at the Trump administration's request is suing for suppression of free speech. The lawsuit names Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, and other government officials, accusing them of First Amendment violations (via NPR).

iceblock-app.jpg

Key to the lawsuit is a statement from Bondi, who claimed Apple removed the app after the government asked Apple to do so. "We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store -- and Apple did so," said Bondi.

ICEBlock allows iPhone users to report the location of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents when the agents are spotted in public. The app was removed from the App Store in early October, though people who downloaded it before it was pulled are still able to use it. ICEBlock had over a million users when it was removed from the App Store.

Joshua Aaron, the app's developer, argues that the creation, distribution, and promotion of ICEBlock is lawful and protected by the First Amendment. He claims that the government officials named in the lawsuit used the authority of their offices to pressure, threaten, and coerce Apple to remove the app.
This lawsuit challenges these government officials' unconstitutional threats and demands against Apple, which pressured it to remove the ICEBlock app from the App Store. In particular, Attorney General Bondi's coercion of Apple has censored Aaron and ALL U Chart,Inc., which owns ICEBlock's intellectual property, by making ICEBlock--their speech--unavailable to the public.
Click to expand...
Apple is not named in the lawsuit, and is not being targeted by Aaron. When the app was removed from the App Store, Apple said that the app violated guideline 1.1.1, and made it clear that it was removed at the behest of the government.
Information provided to Apple by law enforcement shows that your app violates Guideline 1.1.1 because its purpose is to provide location information about law enforcement officers that can be used to harm such officers individually or as a group. For this reason, your app will be removed from the App Store
Click to expand...
Aaron asks that the court allow ICEBlock to be reinstated, and that government officials be prevented from threatening or pressuring ICEBlock distributors.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: ICEBlock App Developer Sues Trump Officials, Claims Apple Was Pressured to Remove App
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/12/08/iceblock-dev-sues-trump-administration/
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: JonneyGee, progx, SFjohn and 2 others
goonie4life9 said:
This seems to be a bit thin. Apple's Guideline 1.1.1 is pretty clear and someone asking Apple to enforce their own guidelines is not problematic. If anything, this weakens Apple's claims for control over the App Store. They let an app through that clearly violated their Guidelines.
Click to expand...

Someone asking Apple to enforce their own guidelines is absolutely problematic if that "someone" is the US government. It's unconstitutional, in fact. And it isn't thin...speaking as a First Amendment attorney, this is easily the strongest case of government "jawboning" I've ever seen.

Also not sure if Apple reorganized the App Store guidelines, but here is 1.1.1:

1.1 Objectionable Content
Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy. Examples of such content include:

  • 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.
Click to expand...

If this is actually what Apple was citing, it's not remotely clear how it even applies here.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Love
Reactions: Migelan, jw2002, JonneyGee and 25 others
jarman92 said:
Someone asking Apple to enforce their own guidelines is absolutely problematic if that "someone" is the US government. It's unconstitutional, in fact. And it isn't thin...speaking as a First Amendment attorney, this is easily the strongest case of government "jawboning" I've ever seen.

Also not sure if Apple reorganized the App Store guidelines, but here is 1.1.1:



If this is actually what Apple cited, it's not remotely clear how it even applies here.
Click to expand...
Agreed and I'd assume the lawyer that picked up the case has already done his/her due diligence on this. But this is all moot considering that the Supreme Court bends over for the Trump Administration if/when this gets punted to them. Constitutional rights are a thing of the past these days
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Disagree
Reactions: jw2002, JonneyGee, noraa and 18 others
jarman92 said:
Someone asking Apple to enforce their own guidelines is absolutely problematic if that "someone" is the US government. It's unconstitutional, in fact. And it isn't thin...speaking as a First Amendment attorney, this is easily the strongest case of government "jawboning" I've ever seen.

Also not sure if Apple reorganized the App Store guidelines, but here is 1.1.1:



If this is actually what Apple was citing, it's not remotely clear how it even applies here.
Click to expand...
I also went looking for 1.1.1 and I am reaching pretty much your same conclusion it doesn't seem to be applicable to this case. By the way, Apple would be in violation of their own rules because they issue speed trap alerts in their map application, by the logic that they are applying in this case that would not be allowed as someone could use that information to interfere or cause harm to law enforcement. By the way, law enforcement has tried in the past to eliminate apps and app functionality that shows where they are doing speed checks. Seems pretty clear to me that Apple caved in to the current administration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jw2002, terrapinjess, rhinosrcool and 11 others
Google Maps and Waze both feature the ability to report where law enforcement officers are engaging in speed enforcement and other traffic measures. Both are allowed under Apple's rules and both have been tested in court and declared legal based on First Amendment grounds. Other than the charged political climate around immigration enforcement there's no reason this app should be banned if Google Maps and Waze are not.

And before someone argues that immigration offenses differ in severity to traffic offenses, both categories can range from simple civil offenses to major felonies (aggravated DWI, for example).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick_ag, Kengineer, terrapinjess and 13 others
jarman92 said:
Someone asking Apple to enforce their own guidelines is absolutely problematic if that "someone" is the US government. It's unconstitutional, in fact. And it isn't thin...speaking as a First Amendment attorney, this is easily the strongest case of government "jawboning" I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
Really? Bigger than the FBI colluding with Facebook and Twitter to suppress "troublesome" content and commenters in 2020 (e.g., Hunter Biden laptop story, COVID lab leak discussions, deplatforming conservatives, and so on)?
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Haha
Reactions: Oblivious.Robot, robd003, Kengineer and 9 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back