LOS ANGELES – Today, plaintiffs in L.A. Press Club v. Noem welcomed a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming that they are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for retaliatory use of force during ongoing protests against federal actions in Southern California.
The court recognized an “avalanche” of evidence that supported the claim that journalists, legal observers and protesters were subjected to retaliatory force by federal agents and noted “a chilling effect” on the exercise of constitutionally protected freedoms.
“Today’s ruling confirms that the Constitution does not permit the government to silence dissent through intimidation or violence,” said Peter Eliasberg, chief counsel at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. “The court recognized the harms inflicted on journalists, observers and protesters are real, ongoing and unconstitutional. We will continue to fight to ensure that those protections are not just recognized but enforced.”
While the Ninth Circuit directed the district court to narrow the scope of the preliminary injunction issued last September, it upheld the core findings that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their retaliation claims and that immediate relief is warranted.
"This ruling is an important step towards accountability,” said Lexis-Olivier Ray, a plaintiff in the case. “Nobody should face violence or retaliation for documenting federal agents or speaking out, especially against government abuse."
The lawsuit – filed in June 2025 by the Los Angeles Press Club, NewsGuild - Communications Workers of America (CWA), three journalists, two individual protesters and a legal observer – details the retaliatory violence DHS inflicted in violation of their constitutional rights to protest, observe and report on government actions.
This decision reinforces that in a democracy, the public has the right to document and observe government action and to speak out without being targeted for doing so,” said Matt Borden, partner with BraunHagey & Borden LLP, representing the plaintiffs. “Shooting projectiles at reporters, targeting observers and injuring demonstrators is not crowd control. It’s retaliation.”
Plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California; BraunHagey & Borden LLP; the Law Office of Carol A. Sobel; the Law Office of Peter Bibring; and Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris, Hoffman & Zeldes LLP.
Read the ruling: https://www.aclusocal.org/app/uploads/2026/04/LAPCvNoem-NinthCir-Opinion-2026-04-01.pdf
Stay Informed
Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.