An April 1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the rights of journalists to do their jobs without retaliatory actions by the federal government.
The Ninth Circuit sent instructions to a lower court to design remedies that are more narrowly targeted at the journalists who originally brought the suit.
A total of 45 news organizations filed a friend of the court brief sponsored by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to defend reporters’ rights. Journalists claimed they had been injured by pepper balls, tear gas and rubber bullets fired by federal officers from Department of Homeland Security during demonstrations against anti-immigrant raids in Los Angeles.
A lawsuit by the Los Angeles Press Club yesterday produced a decision by the Appeals Court that found journalists likely would prevail in claims that their First Amendment rights had been violated in the DHS enforcement actions.
The decision being appealed came from a federal district court that found “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 protesters attempting to comply with dispersal orders would… undoubtedly chill the media’s efforts to cover these public events and protestors seeking to express peacefully their views on national policies.”
The Appeals Court agreed that First Amendment violations likely had occurred. But it found the lower court’s remedies were too broad and sent the case back for more action.
When the district court prohibited firing of tear gas canisters aimed at “any person,” it went too far, said the Ninth Circuit.
Protecting journalists as well as others from crowd dispersal orders was also too broad, as was a requirement for audible warnings before crowd control actions were taken. The requirements would benefit people other than the journalists who sued, the appellate court said. The court sent the case back for more work to tailor remedies aimed to more closely benefit only the journalists who sued.
