An appeals panel Wednesday affirmed a Los Angeles federal judge’s preliminary injunction stopping federal law enforcement from using “indiscriminate force” against journalists reporting on protests in the region, but held that the ban is overly broad and sent the case back to the lower court for a more focused directive.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs, including the Los Angeles Press Club, the NewsGuild-Communications Workers of America, journalists and others, were likely to prevail on First Amendment retaliation claims because the record contained extensive evidence that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its former secretary acted with retaliatory intent.
“The record contains extensive evidence that federal officers repeatedly targeted journalists and peaceful legal observers who stood far from any protesters or bad actors,” according to the appellate opinion by Judge Ronald Gould, a nominee of President Bill Clinton. “There is also evidence that defendants deployed crowd control weapons even when crowds were already dispersing or attempting to comply with orders to disperse.”
In September 2025, U.S. District Judge Hernán Vera issued the preliminary injunction blocking the 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 in Los Angeles federal court against the DHS, then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and others in June 2025 by plaintiffs alleging that the DHS use of force at anti-immigration enforcement demonstrations last summer punishes and suppresses the exercise of First Amendment-protected rights.
According to the complaint, the 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 2025, 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 illegal immigration raids in Southern California.
Since then, the Trump administration 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 a defense motion.
In its opinion, the appeals panel affirmed the district court’s issuance of the preliminary injunction, but remanded the case back to Vera for further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion.