Ninth Circuit Orders Narrower Injunction in LA Protest Case (1)

A Ninth Circuit panel told a district court to narrow its order that restricted law enforcement’s ability throughout much of Southern California to use crowd control weapons against journalists and protesters.

The injunction was too broad in providing relief that covers non-parties attending any protest in the Los Angeles area, a panel US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit judges said.

The protesters and journalists are likely to succeed in claims that officers retaliated against them for exercising their First Amendment rights, Judge Ronald M. Gould said in a Wednesday order.

Plaintiffs said under oath that because officers have injured them, sometimes multiple times, while covering or attending protests, they’ll stand further from future protests or wear protective gear “to the detriment of their news coverage and other First Amendment activities,” Gould said.

“Others have attested that the injuries they sustained have made them hesitant to participate in or cover future protests,” he said.

Judge Hernan D. Vera, of the US District Court for the Central District of California, issued a preliminary injunction in September after reports that federal agents targeted journalists covering anti-deportation protests that surged in June, and shot tear gas canisters and other projectiles without proper warnings. Vera called the pattern “savagery.”

Injuries

Officers’ crowd control tactics left journalists, legal observers, and peaceful protesters with burns, concussions, and wounds requiring stitches, Gould said.

“The district court made well-supported factual findings that Defendants targeted protesters, journalists, and legal observers with indiscriminate force,” Gould said. “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 panel partially paused the preliminary injunction in a two-page order in December. The judges limited it to apply only to protesters and journalists who were directly involved in the case, citing the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA curbing nationwide injunctions.

Gould said Vera’s injunction includes provisions that apply to people who aren’t parties to the case, such as by barring Department of Homeland Security officers from “[d]ispersing, threatening, or assaulting or reasonably should know is a Journalist or Legal Observer.” The injunction also goes too far by barring officers from issuing “lawful, non-retaliatory dispersal orders” to journalists and legal observers, Gould said.

Additionally, a provision in Vera’s order requiring officers to provide two distinct, audible warnings before using crowd control weapons is “necessarily subjective” and “invites strategic or near-frivolous contempt proceedings against the government’s responsible law enforcement agents,” Gould said. “That possibility further burdens the government, while it does little to give Plaintiffs their desired relief.”

The press group that brought the case also sued the city of LA, alleging LA Police Department officers used excessive force at anti-deportation protests.

Judges Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Mark J. Bennett also sat on the panel.

BraunHagey & Borden LLP, Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP, and ACLU of Southern California represent the protesters and journalists.

The case is Los Angeles Press Club v. Noem, 9th Cir., No. 25-5975, 4/1/26.