Federal Court Orders Protection for Observing, Recording or Reporting DHS Operations in the Central District of California

Los Angeles — A federal court today ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to stop using force to prevent plaintiffs in L.A. Press Club v. Mullin – journalists, legal observer, and members of the public – from documenting immigration enforcement operations in the Central District of California. The injunction prohibits federal agents from dispersing the plaintiffs from public spaces when they are engaged in the constitutionally protected acts of observing, recording, or reporting on DHS immigration enforcement and removal operations or protests of those operations. The order protects people who are engaged in the constitutionally protected acts of newsgathering and public observation of government activity.

The ruling is the culmination of more than a year of litigation brought by protesters, journalists, and a legal observer who were injured by DHS agents during immigration enforcement operations and related protests across the region. This order establishes enforceable limits on how federal agencies may conduct themselves when the press and public are exercising their constitutional right to protest, observe, document, and report on federal immigration enforcement.

"We are pleased with the Court's ruling. Demonstrators across the country have been brutalized by rubber bullets, tear gas, and other violent tactics at the hands of DHS officers. Our nation was built from protests and the free press. The government cannot suppress these rights with violence," said Matthew Borden, partner at BraunHagey and Borden LLP, and co-counsel in the case.

The case was filed in June 2025 by the Los Angeles Press Club, the NewsGuild-CWA, three individual journalists, two community members, and a legal observer, after DHS agents deployed militarized crowd-control weapons against people protesting and documenting the sweeping and indiscriminate immigration raids across Southern California.

Plaintiffs include reporters who sustained concussions, burns, and lacerations while covering events in public spaces. Federal courts found extensive evidence that agents targeted protesters, journalists, and legal observers who posed no threat and stood far from any unlawful activity. Today’s order follows on the heels of a July 6 order granting class certification in the same case.

"The First Amendment exists to prevent the government from deciding what the public gets to see and know. Today's ruling provides crucial protection for that principle," said Jonathan Markovitz, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. "No federal agency has the authority to use force to prevent the public from documenting and holding the government accountable for its actions. The Court’s order helps to ensure that DHS cannot violate constitutional rights that are foundational to our democracy."

"For more than a year the Trump Administration has deployed federal agents to American cities and directed those agents to use excessive force to intimidate, silence, and punish citizens who disagree with its agenda," said Steve Art, partner at the civil rights law firm of Loevy + Loevy, and co-counsel in the case. "These tactics have no place in a free society. We applaud the Court's ruling today, which will put an end to this lawless conduct and protect the First Amendment rights of the people throughout the Central District."

Today's injunction marks a significant win for press freedom, civil rights, and constitutional accountability, affirming that the government may not use force to prevent public scrutiny, especially as it engages in destructive raids that are ripping families apart and terrorizing our communities.

Read the order: https://www.aclusocal.org/app/uploads/2026/07/ORDER-GRANTING-REVISED-PRELIMINARY-INJUNCTION-104-117-by-Judge-Hernan-D.-Vera.-For-purposes-of.pdf

Plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, BraunHagey & Borden LLP, Loevy + Loevy, the Law Office of Carol A. Sobel, the Law Office of Peter Bibring, and Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris, Hoffman & Zeldes LLP.