Judge Rules LAPD Cannot Block Photojournalists From Documenting Protests

A US District Court of California has granted a temporary restraining order against the City of Los Angeles, and therefore the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), barring law enforcement from blocking, assaulting, citing, or detaining a journalist from documenting a march, protest, rally, or demonstration.

The Los Angeles Press Club brought the case against the city of Los Angeles, citing multiple instances where police assaulted, blocked, or otherwise prevented a journalist from performing their job as protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

“On June 9, 2025, photojournalist Michael Nigro took his position on the Temple Street bridge, a pedestrian bridge offering a view of the protests in front of Edward R. Roybal Federal Building. Though he was high above the protests below, he soon hear the telltale sound of less-lethal munitions (LLMs) hitting a pole near his head — a sound he recognized from covering conflict zones,” the case file reads, insinuating that the police were taking specific aim at Nigro despite the fact he was not in the thick of the protest nor was he involved with it, but rather simply documenting it.

“Later that day, he was shot in the head with an LLM by a Los Angeles Police Department officer.”

The case against the city says that experience was far from unique, and cites at least 35 other instances between June 6 and June 19, 2025, where the LAPD hit journalists with LLMs, exposed them to gas, forced them away from public places, or used other forms of physical force. PetaPixel previously reported that the violence from law enforcement surrounding the ICE protests in Los Angeles in early June was aimed at journalists.

Despite new protections for media passed by the California Legislature, LAPD officers repeatedly ordered journalists to leave areas they had closed off, the legal complaint alleges, and on June 8, LAPD officers held a group of approximately 20 to 30 journalists from MSNBC, CNN, the AP, and others in a “press area” about 150 feet from the protests and if they left this area, they were threatened with arrest.

“When journalists persisted in documenting the protests, it appears from the evidence presented that they faced an onslaught of projectiles and other shows of physical force. On some occasions, LAPD officers purportedly targeted individuals who were clearly identifiable as members of the press,” the lawsuit alleges.

The US District Court agreed with the LA Press Club and granted a temporary restraining order against the city of Los Angeles and the LAPD. In most states, journalists are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, state constitutions protecting freedom of the press, and other statutory provisions. California has one of the strongest, that being California Penal Code § 409.7. The court today granted a temporary restraining order preventing the LAPD from violating the provisions in that law:

If LAPD or another law enforcement agency establishes a police line or rolling closure at a demonstration, march, protest, or rally where individuals are engaged in activity that is protected pursuant to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, LAPD is enjoined from:

a. Prohibiting a journalist from entering or remaining in the closed areas.
b. Intentionally assaulting, interfering with, or obstructing any journalist who is gathering, receiving, or processing information for communication to the public
(including by restricting journalists to areas from which they do not have sufficient opportunity to observe and report on protests, including the interaction between police and protestors).
c. Citing, detaining, or arresting a journalist who is in a closed area for failure to disperse, curfew violation, or obstruction of a law enforcement officer for gathering, receiving, or processing information. If LAPD detains or arrest a person who claims to be a journalist, that person shall be permitted to promptly contact a supervisory officer of the rank of captain or above for purposes of challenging that detention, unless circumstances make it impossible to do so.

The LAPD is also barred from using LLMs and other crowd control weapons (including gas and flash-bangs) against journalists who are not posing a threat of imminent harm against a law enforcement officer or civilian. Additionally, when a person claiming to be a journalist is arrested, the LAPD must allow them to “promptly contact a supervisory officer of the rank of captain or above for purposes of challenging that detention.”

In the ruling, Judge Hernán D. Vera sided with the journalists, and determined that their “risk of future injury is far from speculative,” citing to declarations from nine journalists and documentation of dozens of instances just in the past month, “where LAPD officers shot LLMs at journalists, exposed them to chemical agents, shoved them, and rammed them on horseback.”

The court also noted additional incidents since the complaint was filed, and highlighted the fact that journalists intended to keep covering protests, which are widely expected to continue. “The likelihood of repeated confrontations together with the evidence evincing Defendants’ sustained pattern of conduct suffices to show that Plaintiffs risk recurrent future injury,” Judge Vera wrote.

Several incidents appeared to have involved direct targeting of journalists in retaliation for their First Amendment expressive activities on public streets and sidewalks.

“The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), commends the brave journalists, who risk their health and safety to report on these important event as we;; as their attorneys for filing this important lawsuit,” said NPPA general counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher. “Despite taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and all the effort that has gone into attempting to train officers to respect the rights of journalists and the public, they have been disregarded by far too many in the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies,” Osterreicher adds.

“Sadly, it will be the taxpayers, who will once again have to pay for these unconstitutional and unnecessary abuses,” he concludes.

This is a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction hearing is set for July 24 to determine if this order should be extended.

---

Image credits: Header photo licensed via Depositphotos.