Ninth Circuit Nixes 'Overbroad' DHS Protest Injunction, Backs Press Rights

LitNews.ai Staff · April 1, 2026 · Ninth Circuit

Panel: Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett · Opinion by: Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould

A Ninth Circuit panel Tuesday affirmed a federal judge's preliminary injunction protecting journalists and protesters from Department of Homeland Security retaliation during immigration protests but held the order was too broad, saying several provisions "expressly apply to non-parties" and exceed the court's authority.

The Los Angeles Press Club, NewsGuild-Communications Workers of America and individual journalists, legal observers and protesters sued DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and the department after federal agents allegedly used crowd control weapons indiscriminately during summer 2025 immigration protests in Southern California. The plaintiffs claimed officers targeted them with pepper balls, rubber bullets and tear gas canisters while they engaged in First Amendment activities, causing injuries including concussions, lacerations requiring stitches and burns.

Writing for the three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Ronald Gould found "extensive evidence that federal officers repeatedly targeted journalists and peaceful legal observers who stood far from any protesters or bad actors." The court rejected the government's argument that injuries "incidentally resulted from officers' legitimate efforts to protect federal personnel," noting the district court had "made well-supported factual findings that Defendants targeted protesters, journalists, and legal observers with indiscriminate force." Judge Gould emphasized that "the presence of some violent actors did not give Defendants carte blanche to fire crowd control weapons indiscriminately."

The Central District of California issued the preliminary injunction in September 2025 after finding DHS agents engaged in "indiscriminate use of force targeting journalists standing far from any protest activity." The government appealed, arguing the injunction was "legally unsound and practically unworkable," but the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's analysis under the Winter factors for preliminary injunctions.

While affirming the injunction's validity, the panel found several provisions improperly extended beyond the named plaintiffs to protect "any person" or broadly defined categories of journalists and legal observers. The court vacated and remanded for a narrower order, noting that "complete relief is not a guarantee—it is the maximum a court can provide." The case highlights tensions between immigration enforcement and First Amendment rights as protests continue over ICE tactics.

Counsel

Plaintiffs are represented by Matthew B. Borden, Gregory D. Washington, J. Noah Hagey and Kory J. DeClark of BraunHagey & Borden; Adrienna Wong, Jonathan P. Markovitz, Meredith Gallen, Mohammad Tajsar, Peter J. Eliasberg, Jacob Reisberg and Summer Lacey of American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California; Carol A. Sobel of Law Office of Carol A. Sobel; John C. Washington, Paul L. Hoffman and Michael Seplow of Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes; and Peter Bibring of Law Office of Peter Bibring.

Defendants are represented by Michael Shih, Courtney L. Dixon and Mark R. Freeman of the Department of Justice Civil Division.

Case: The case is Los Angeles Press Club v. Noem, case number 25-5975, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Court

Ninth Circuit

Case Name

Los Angeles Press Club v. Noem

Docket

25-5975