Federal Court Blocks Federal Officers From Attacking Journalists And Peaceful Protesters

It’s a story as old as law enforcement itself: when protesters start protesting, it’s often the cops who decide it’s time for everything to get violent, rather than those engaged in protests.

We saw a LOT of this during the protests following the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis, Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin. Whatever “wrongs” the cops felt they had “suffered” following nationwide protests a few years earlier in the wake of the killing of Michael Brown by a police officer were now multiplied. No one trusted the cops. And the cops, in response, proved themselves completely untrustworthy by turning non-violent protests into violent interactions by attacking peaceful protesters, journalists, and civil rights activists.

Lots of litigation occurred during these protests, and a lot of federal courts declared the actions of officers to be unconstitutional. But it appears no one has learned anything they were supposed to learn. The pattern persists, with law enforcement deciding precedential rulings addressing exactly these sort of violent actions just don’t apply because it’s a different set of protests.

Los Angeles has been invaded by the Trump Administration. In addition to the influx of federal law enforcement officers (mainly ICE, CBP, and Federal Protection Service personnel), Trump sent in the National Guard and the Marines.

Fortunately, the Martial Law Starter Pack hasn’t resulted in military troops beating, assaulting, or shooting residents of Los Angeles. (Yet!) But it has generated a lot of unprovoked — and legally unjustifiable — assaults on citizens by federal officers.

Journalistic entities in the Los Angeles area sued the government for targeting and injuring journalists. And the government is now forbidden from doing several things to people engaged in journalism, as well as people simply engaged in peaceful protest efforts.

This injunction [PDF], handed down in a California federal court, makes it clear federal officers are deliberately targeting people engaged in acts that are firmly protected by the First Amendment. There’s a lot more detailed in this decision, but this set of bullet points gives a good summary of the police violence:

Plaintiff journalist Ryanne Mena was struck by a pepper ball while covering protests in downtown Los Angeles though she stepped away to approximately 20 feet behind protestors. The following day, Border Patrol agents hit her in the head with a rubber bullet while she was observing protestors from about 30 to 50 feet away.

Plaintiff journalist Lexis-Olivier Ray recounts being targeted by volleys of pepper balls while taking cover near a group of media trucks about 50 feet away from the line of officers. See Kerlikowske Decl. ¶¶ 22–35 (averring that DHS’ use of force in firing pepper balls directly at press was excessive and unnecessary).

Plaintiff journalist Sean Beckner-Carmitchel was hit in the head with a tear gas canister while filming protestors from over 20 feet away.

Veteran journalist Ted Soqui was repeatedly hit in the back with pepper balls on two successive days, between 15 and 100 feet from any protestors.

Border Patrol officers hit veteran photojournalist Jonthan Alcorn (who carried professional photography equipment) with a tear gas canister, while he was retreating and over 100 yards from federal officers.

And if you choose not to believe the sworn statements of journalists, the court says there’s plenty of stuff on the record that backs these assertions:

These were not isolated incidents. Indeed, the record includes detailed and credible declarations from nearly 50 journalists, legal observers, and protestors averring that federal law enforcement agents used rubber bullets, pepper balls, tear gas, and other crowd control weapons on them at protests from June 6 through July 10, 2025.

[…]

Moreover, the avalanche of evidence before the Court—along with federal officials’ statement —suggests that federal agents acted pursuant to a common and widespread practice of violating the First Amendment rights of journalists, legal observers, and protestors.

The government claimed it was the journalists’ fault for being too close to the protests they were covering. The court is having none of it:

Defendants attempt to flip this burden. Defendants contend in the main that members of the press and legal observers have not adequately distinguished themselves from “rioters.” But that is not their responsibility. By Defendants’ logic, any journalist seeking to inform the public of the “operations of [its] government,” must be prepared to face serious physical injury if a single protestor launches a plastic water bottle.

Federal officers deliberately violated rights because they thought they’d get away with it. It’s government-sanctioned sadism, even if the government is careful enough to prevent creating a paper trail that endorses sadists/rights violations. As the court notes, the mere existence of policies that outline what is or isn’t an acceptable use of force does the government no favors, especially when those policies appear to have been violated regularly by federal officers.

The government’s counterarguments are so bad that the court is forced to point out it can’t even win this case if the court decides it’s going to take the government’s side, which is something it’s procedurally prevented from doing at this point in the litigation:

Viewed in the light most generous to Defendants, the record reveals that upon encountering
any violence—however minor—Defendants indiscriminately targeted in equal measure violent
actors and peaceful protestors, journalists, and observers.

The end result? A sweeping injunction forbidding the government from “dispersing, threatening, or assaulting” any journalist or legal observer, along with extensive limitations on force deployment, whether the target is a journalist or just someone engaged in a peaceful protest. On top of that, dispersal orders must be clear and audible, and allow time for people to disperse. Furthermore, “kinetic” projectiles (rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, flashbangs, tear gas, etc.) must be used sparingly and carefully and never used as replacements for actual bullets (targeting people’s heads, chests, etc.) unless there’s the threat of imminent harm to officers or bystanders.

This is how the court sums up its decision and the actions of federal officers in Los Angeles:

[T]he Court concludes that federal agents’ indiscriminate use of force—targeting journalists standing far from any protest activity, launching scorching-hot tear gas canisters directly at people, and shooting projectiles at protestors attempting to comply with dispersal orders—will undoubtedly chill the media’s efforts to cover these public events and protestors seeking to express peacefully their views on national policies.

To be clear, the Court expresses no sympathy for those private individuals who engaged in violence during this period. Indeed, this Order does not prevent any appropriate enforcement of the law against these individuals. But the actions of a relative few does not give DHS carte blanche to unleash near-lethal force on crowds of third parties in the vicinity. Indeed, under the guise of protecting the public, federal agents have endangered large numbers of peaceful protestors, legal observers, and journalists—as well as the public that relies on them to hold their government accountable. The First Amendment demands better.

Which is how it should be. The government shouldn’t be allowed to deter reporting and protests simply because it doesn’t like being protested and/or reported on. But it’s one thing to issue an injunction like this. It’s quite another to force the government to comply. We’ll see how things play out going forward but I’m not going to hold my breath in hopes of federal compliance.