Federal Court Confirms ICE Retaliated Against Journalists Covering Immigration Raids

A federal appeals court has confirmed what journalists already knew from the bruises, concussions, and burns: ICE deliberately attacked members of the press covering immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles.

In a ruling released last week in L.A. Press Club v. Noem, a three-judge panel found an "avalanche" of evidence showing the Department of Homeland Security acted with "retaliatory intent" when its officers shot, gassed, and assaulted reporters documenting ICE raids in Southern California. The court ruled that plaintiffs -- including the L.A. Press Club, The NewsGuild-CWA, and ACLU SoCal -- are "likely to prevail on their First Amendment retaliation claims."

"Shooting projectiles at reporters, targeting observers, and injuring demonstrators is not crowd control. It's retaliation," said Matt Borden, a partner with BraunHagey & Borden LLP representing the plaintiffs.

The decision upholds a September 2025 preliminary injunction that restricted DHS's use of force against journalists and peaceful protesters. That original order came after federal judge Hernan Vera found that ICE's actions "undoubtedly chill the media's efforts to cover these public events" and required limits on the agency's "indiscriminate use of force targeting journalists standing far from any protest activity."

What ICE Did to Journalists

The evidence presented in the original suit documented systematic violence against working reporters. ICE officers shot one journalist in the head with a rubber bullet, causing a concussion. They hit another journalist in the arm with a tear gas canister, leaving a hematoma and burns. These were not isolated incidents -- the complaint detailed dozens of violent attacks on credentialed press.

The plaintiffs sought specific restrictions: no assault or dispersal of journalists without cause, no chemical or projectile weapons aimed at members of the press, and no firing at "heads, necks, or other sensitive areas." In other words, they asked a court to order federal agents to stop doing things that would get any civilian arrested for assault.

"If you are a journalist and you can't tell the story, you are the story," said Adam Rose, deputy director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, in a video about the ruling.

The Catch: Narrowing the Injunction

While the appeals court affirmed that DHS violated journalists' constitutional rights, it also ruled that the original injunction was "overbroad in several respects." The judges took issue with protections extending to "non-parties" attending protests in the Los Angeles area and sent the case back to lower courts to "fashion a narrower injunction."

That technical limitation does not change the core finding: a federal court has ruled that immigration enforcement agents deliberately retaliated against journalists for exercising First Amendment rights. The government targeted people with cameras because it did not want the public to see what it was doing.

A Pattern Spreading Beyond L.A.

The Southern California case has inspired similar legal challenges across the country. Last summer, the Chicago Headline Club filed a federal suit against DHS after ICE's Operation Midway Blitz, citing violence against press, elected officials, clergy, and peaceful protesters. A judge issued a preliminary injunction in November 2025, and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino subsequently pulled agents out of Chicago. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their suit after DHS retreated.

"The retreat of DHS agents from Chicago is due in large part to the bravery of our plaintiffs and every Chicagoan who spoke up about the brutality they experienced because they exercised their First Amendment rights," said Katie Schwartzmann, counsel at Protect Democracy.

The pattern is clear: when courts force ICE to stop attacking journalists, the agency often backs down from the operations it claimed were essential to public safety. That tells you everything about whether these raids were ever about law enforcement or simply about demonstrating power without accountability.

Why Documentation Matters

"Here's the takeaway: Keep recording," Rose said. "This case exists because of videos, because of photos, because people documented what was happening in real time."

That documentation is precisely what DHS wanted to prevent. Authoritarian governments do not shoot journalists covering routine law enforcement. They shoot journalists when they fear public scrutiny of their actions. The appeals court ruling confirms that fear was the point -- ICE wanted to punish people for watching and recording.

The case now returns to lower courts to refine the injunction's scope. But the constitutional finding stands: the federal government retaliated against journalists for doing their jobs. And it took a lawsuit, months of litigation, and an appeals court ruling to force the government to admit that shooting reporters in the head is not a legitimate crowd control tactic.