"The appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs are 'likely to prevail on their First Amendment retaliation claims' due to an 'avalanche' of evidence showing DHS acted with 'retaliatory intent.'"
"'Shooting projectiles at reporters, targeting observers, and injuring demonstrators is not crowd control. It's retaliation,' said Matt Borden, a partner with BraunHagey & Borden LLP."
"'Here's the takeaway: Keep recording,' said Adam Rose, the deputy director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, emphasizing the role of documentation in the case."
In September 2025, a federal judge mandated that the Department of Homeland Security restrict its force against journalists and peaceful protesters during ICE raids in Southern California. This ruling followed a lawsuit by the L.A. Press Club, The NewsGuild-CWA, and ACLU SoCal, claiming unconstitutional attacks on journalists. An appellate court upheld the injunction, citing evidence of retaliatory intent by DHS. However, the court found the original injunction overly broad and required a more specific one. The ruling emphasizes the importance of documenting events during protests.
Read at Nieman Lab
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]