In the summer of 2025, protests erupted across the country in response to immigration raids conducted by ICE and other federal agencies. In Southern California, federal officers from the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection responded to these peaceful demonstrations by deploying crowd control weapons, including pepper balls, rubber bullets, and tear gas, often indiscriminately. These tactics resulted in physical injuries to protesters, legal observers, and members of the press, including concussions, lacerations, and burns. Plaintiffs, comprising individual journalists, legal observers, and two press organizations, filed suit alleging violations of their First Amendment rights to be free from retaliation and their right of public access to protests. The district court issued a preliminary injunction to safeguard these rights, but the government appealed, arguing the order was legally unsound and overbroad.
The panel applied the four factors from Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. to evaluate the preliminary injunction. First, regarding standing, the court held that both individual and organizational plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of establishing standing because they suffered continuing, present adverse effects, including physical injuries and a chilling of their First Amendment activities. The court noted that a chilling of First Amendment rights constitutes a constitutionally sufficient injury. Second, on the merits of the retaliation claims, the court found the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed. The record contained an avalanche of circumstantial evidence showing that federal officers targeted journalists and legal observers who stood far from any bad actors, and deployed force even when crowds were dispersing. The court rejected the government's argument that the force was incidental to protecting personnel, noting that the presence of some violent actors did not justify indiscriminate force. Third, the court affirmed that plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm, as the loss of First Amendment freedoms for even minimal periods is unquestionably irreparable. Fourth, the balance of equities and public interest favored the plaintiffs, particularly given the public interest in upholding First Amendment principles and the role of journalists. However, while the district court correctly applied the Winter factors, the court held that the scope of the injunction was overbroad. The injunction contained provisions that expressly applied to non-parties and was broader than necessary to afford complete relief to the plaintiffs. For example, the order prohibited firing weapons at any person and restricted dispersal orders for non-party journalists and legal observers without probable cause. Additionally, the requirement for two separate audible warnings before using crowd control weapons was deemed too burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the specific harm alleged. The court emphasized that while party-specific injunctions may incidentally benefit non-parties, they cannot be drafted to provide sweeping relief to the general public.
The preliminary injunction remains in effect in its core protections but must be revised by the district court to remove provisions that bind non-parties or exceed the scope of the plaintiffs' specific injuries. The government is no longer bound by the overly broad prohibitions on dispersing non-party journalists or the strict audible warning requirements, but must still adhere to a new, narrower order that prevents retaliation against the specific plaintiffs. The case returns to the district court to determine the precise scope of relief necessary to remedy the chilling of the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights without imposing unnecessary restrictions on federal law enforcement.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download