An appeals panel is considering a Trump administration bid to vacate a preliminary injunction stopping federal law enforcement from using excessive force against journalists reporting on protests in Southern California, according to court papers obtained Tuesday.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard arguments Monday from U.S. Department of Homeland Security attorneys, urging the court to dissolve the injunction. The government argued the injunction issued in September by a federal judge in Los Angeles was overly broad.
U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera issued the preliminary injunction blocking DHS — which includes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection — from retaliating against peaceful protesters, legal observers and journalists.
The injunction stems from a lawsuit brought against DHS, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and others in June 2025 by the Los Angeles Press Club, the NewsGuild-Communications Workers of America, three journalists, two protesters and a legal observer, alleging that the DHS use of force at immigration demonstrations over the summer punishes and suppresses the exercise of First Amendment-protected rights.
According to the complaint, DHS misuses weaponry, including chemical agents such as tear gas, rubber bullets, impact munitions, pepper balls, pepper spray, exploding grenades, batons and fists to retaliate against protesters, legal observers and reporters to create a violent spectacle the administration of President Donald Trump used as a pretext to turn the military against Californians.
In a 45-page opinion in September, Vera determined that “the record includes detailed and credible declarations from nearly 50 journalists, legal observers and protesters,” which showed DHS retaliation against people for protesting against and reporting on the immigration raids in Southern California.
Since then, the defendants moved to have the court dismiss the case, arguing that allegations in the first amended complaint are factually and legally insufficient to support a claim.
While plaintiffs may have been subject to force in the past, it is not established that “the same plaintiffs will be subject to force again in the future,” according to the defense motion.