Thursday, April 2, 2026
Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Government Properly Barred From Hindering Reporters
Preliminary Injunction Stems From Actions Against Members of Press Covering Demonstrations in Los Angeles
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A District Court judge properly issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from interfering with or retaliating against journalists covering demonstrations, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday, but found that some of the protections afforded are broader than necessary to safeguard First Amendment rights.
The preliminary injunction, granted by Judge Hernan Diego Vera, was sought by the Los Angeles Press Club, a 125-year-old organization with more than 1,000 members, and by NewsGuild-Communications Workers of America, a union founded in 1933. Rights of protesters and onlookers are covered by the order.
The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and its secretary, Kristi Noem, are the defendants/appellants.
Sparking the litigation was the conduct of federal law enforcement officers in controlling crowds at June 2025 demonstrations in Los Angeles against practices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in conducting raids.
Gould’s Opinion
Judge Ronald M. Gould authored the Ninth Circuit’s opinion. He said agents responded to the escalating protests “by deploying crowd control weapons, at times indiscriminately, against protesters, legal observers, and members of the press,” noting:
“These crowd control tactics left peaceful protesters, members of the press, and legal observers with injuries including pain, swelling, bruising, lacerations requiring stitches, and concussions.”
Saying that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim of retaliation based on their First Amendment activity, he wrote:
“[H]ere, the district court cited an ‘avalanche’ of circumstantial evidence to conclude that Plaintiffs’ First Amendment activity was a ‘substantial motivating factor’ for Defendant’s actions….The record contains extensive evidence that federal officers repeatedly targeted journalists and peaceful legal observers who stood far from any protesters or bad actors….There is also evidence that Defendants deployed crowd control weapons even when crowds were already dispersing or attempting to comply with orders to disperse. On this record, we see no clear error in the court’s finding that Defendants acted with retaliatory intent.”
‘Indiscriminate Force’
Gould added:
“The district court made well-supported factual findings that Defendants targeted protesters, journalists, and legal observers with indiscriminate force. The presence of some violent actors did not give Defendants carte blanche to fire crowd control weapons indiscriminately into crowds of peaceful protesters, legal observers, and members of the press.”
The press groups have standing, he said, because individual members who were personally affected have standing. The jurist observed:
“Government conduct that induces reporters to modify their coverage or protesters to alter or limit their methods of protest chills First Amendment expression when based on a reasonable fear that government reprisals are likely to occur….Stated another way, adverse changes to First Amendment activities, when adopted because of fear of government punishment, demonstrate chilled and diminished First Amendment speech. That reduction of speech to the public establishes continuing, present adverse effects sufficient to confer standing.”
Vera was correct in determining that irreparable harm would be suffered absent a preliminary injunction and that “the balance of equities and public interest favor Plaintiffs,” Gould said.
Remand Ordered
“The preliminary injunction here is overbroad in some respects,” Gould wrote, providing “examples to guide the district court’s analysis on remand.”
Examples included:
“The preliminary injunction also restricts DHS from ‘[d]ispersing, threatening, or assaulting any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist or Legal Observer (as defined [by the district court]).’ And the district court’s definitions extend the scope of this prohibition beyond the specific Plaintiffs who brought suit or any non-parties necessary to give relief to Plaintiffs.
He went on to say:
“[T]he preliminary injunction bars DHS from dispersing journalists and legal observers ‘unless Defendants have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime unrelated to failing to obey a dispersal order.’ An injunction that exempts Plaintiffs, non-party journalists, and non-party legal observers from lawful, non-retaliatory dispersal orders is broader than necessary to ‘remedy the specific harm alleged’ in Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims.”
The case is LA Press Club v. Noem, 25-5975.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company