An appeals panel has denied a Trump administration bid to stay a preliminary injunction stopping federal law enforcement from using excessive force against journalists reporting on protests in the district, according to court papers obtained Friday.
Want to get caught up on what's happening in SoCal every weekday afternoon? Click to follow The L.A. Local wherever you get podcasts.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday rejected the attempt by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to put the injunction on hold.
In September, U.S. District Judge Hernán D. Vera issued the preliminary injunction blocking DHS -- which includes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection -- from retaliating against peaceful protesters, legal observers and journalists.
The injunction stems from a lawsuit brought against DHS, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and others in June by the Los Angeles Press Club, the NewsGuild- Communications Workers of America, three journalists, two protesters and a legal observer, alleging that the DHS use of force at immigration demonstrations over the summer punishes and suppresses the exercise of First Amendment-protected rights.
According to the complaint, DHS misuses weaponry, including chemical agents such as tear gas, rubber bullets, impact munitions, pepper balls, pepper spray, exploding grenades, batons and fists to retaliate against protesters, legal observers and reporters to create a violent spectacle the administration of President Donald Trump used as a pretext to turn the military against Californians.
In a 45-page opinion in September, Vera determined that "the record includes detailed and credible declarations from nearly 50 journalists, legal observers and protesters," which showed DHS retaliation against people for protesting against and reporting on the violent immigration raids in Southern California.
Since then, the defendants moved to have the court dismiss the case, arguing that allegations in the first amended complaint are factually and legally insufficient to support a claim.
While plaintiffs may have been subject to force in the past, it is not established that "the same plaintiffs will be subject to force again in the future," according to the defense motion.
Follow KNX News 97.1 FM