Federal officers are once again barred from telling journalists and legal observers to leave political demonstrations. They also can鈥檛 arrest or use physical force anyone they should reasonably know is at the protests as a journalist or observer 鈥� unless they think the person committed a crime, following .
The injunction had been granted by U.S. District Judge Michael Simon. But a panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit had temporarily suspended it in August after the federal government appealed.
Several reporters for OPB are among the journalists and legal observers suing the city of Portland, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Marshals Service, alleging they have been targeted by law enforcement in violation of the First and Fourth amendments to the U.S. Constitution at racial justice protests over the summer.
鈥淭he Ninth Circuit has vindicated the rights of reporters and legal observers to report and observe critical events,鈥� attorney Matthew Borden, who argued the motion on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, said in a statement Friday. 鈥淭his is a crucial victory for civil liberties and the freedom of the press, which are critical to the functioning of our democracy. The court鈥檚 Opinion affirms that the government cannot use violence to control the narrative about what is happening at these historic protests.鈥�
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Diarmuid O鈥橲cannlain argued that the injunction 鈥渧alidates the transformation of the First Amendment-based 鈥榬ight of public access鈥� to governmental proceedings into a special privilege for self-proclaimed journalists and 鈥榣egal observers鈥� to disregard crowd dispersal orders issued by federal law enforcement officers.鈥� He wrote that 鈥渁 disturbing pattern of apparent misconduct by certain federal officers鈥� was not adequate grounds for granting journalists and legal observers 鈥渁 unique exemption from lawful dispersal orders.鈥�
