Sweeping federal lawsuits by US media reveal ‘fragile’ press freedoms
PICTURE: Mikhail Nilov/Pexels
A tear gas canister to the knee sent one journalist to the hospital for minor surgery. A ricocheted rubber bullet struck another in the thigh. A third was hit by a pepper ball in the leg, and later struck in the head with a separate projectile, leaving her with a diagnosed concussion.
A fourth journalist took shrapnel from a ‘less lethal’ munition to the leg, requiring hospitalisation and expected to face months of recovery.
All wore clearly marked press credentials while covering June protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids across Los Angeles. Their injuries are just a few among more than 50 incidents detailed in two sweeping federal lawsuits that accuse the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department of systematically targeting journalists.
The legal fight crystallises mounting alarm over the safety of journalists during civil unrest nationwide.
Filed by the Los Angeles Press Club along with independent news outlets Status Coup and The Southlander, the lawsuits claim violations of both the United States Constitution and California’s press freedom laws – including Penal Code §409.7 and §13652(b)(6).
These statutes, widely seen as among the more progressive journalist protections in the country, were enacted as corrective measures after the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, when police were documented harassing, injuring and arresting journalists covering demonstrations.
California’s laws explicitly bar law enforcement from interfering with reporters – even at unlawful assemblies – unless they are actively obstructing emergency services. Yet these cases expose a deeper national crisis.
Even in states with explicit legal protections for journalists, law enforcement often disregards those safeguards with impunity during high-tension protests, revealing the fragility of press freedoms in the face of unchecked police power
While California moved to strengthen journalist protections after 2020, ‘most states moved in the opposite direction, restricting protests rather than protecting press freedoms’, said Tim Zick, a First Amendment scholar and law professor at William & Mary Law School.
He noted that even robust legal protections can fail journalists in court.
‘These kinds of civil lawsuits are extremely hard to win because of qualified immunity and other limitations. That’s why a permanent injunction may be the best available remedy – because it forces systemic change, not just punishment,’ he said.
That’s exactly what the plaintiffs are asking for: a federal court order requiring police to respect journalists’ rights and accept long-term oversight. (Meanwhile, a civil rights attorney told the LA Public Press that the financial fallout from law enforcement’s actions in early June, including legal fees and injury settlements for protesters, could soar past $100-million.)
The stakes go beyond local law enforcement. ‘We are now seeing the deployment of military personnel and federal agents at demonstrations,’ he said. ‘That’s not just a legal escalation – it’s a democratic one.’
‘When journalists are on the ground, they’re exposed to the same risks as protesters, despite serving a very different, constitutionally vital role.’
Carol Sobel, a veteran civil rights attorney leading the lawsuits, emphasised that the goal is to establish legal precedent, not simply to recover damages. ‘There is no equivocation in California law about protecting reporters from the use of force and allowing them access behind police lines. It’s absolute,’ she said.
Sobel said the LAPD has a history of ignoring press protections once specific court orders expire. In one instance, she noted, an injunction remained in place for seven years, after which the LAPD reverted to practices that disregarded constitutional protections for journalists.
She stressed that these rights do not disappear when a court order expires. ‘The Constitution doesn’t expire,’ Sobel said. ‘Law enforcement needs to understand that just because an injunction ends, it doesn’t mean they have license to violate people’s rights or to use force with impunity.’
Adam Rose, press freedom chair at the LA Press Club and one of the principal authors of Penal Code §409.7, ‘down to the placement of commas’, said the law shields journalists from arrest or interference. Yet, Rose said, ‘The issue is what happens in the field’.
‘The complete and total disrespect for the law that law enforcement has demonstrated over the last few days should terrify everyone. It means there is no law. What are they enforcing? It’s whatever they want’
The pattern of violations continues beyond the ICE raid protests. During the ‘No Kings’ march against President Donald Trump’s administration one week later, Mexican photojournalist Hèctor Ad Quintanar said he was shot in the knee by an officer wielding a tear gas launcher.
Quintanar, who had two large cameras around his neck and clearly visible press credentials, captured an image of the officer in the act and believes he was deliberately targeted.
Having documented conflict zones from Ukraine to Haiti, Quintanar expressed deep concern over the law enforcement response in Los Angeles: ‘Even in conflict zones, the police told the press, “If something happens, I’m going to protect you. We are here to protect you; to protect the people”. (In LA), I see the opposite,’ he said.
Bruce Shapiro, Executive Director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, called this shift a fundamental threat to press freedom. For most local journalists, he explained, presuming safety and protection was the norm. Safety training was previously ‘simply not on the radar for local newsrooms.’.
One of the few exceptions was the Black press during segregation, which ‘was always a target for violence, threat and abuse’.
Today, First Amendment experts fear that the presumption of safety is vanishing across the U.S., with Shapiro saying, ‘It’s enormously consequential for the practice of journalism in [this country] to not be able to presume safety’.
With already strained budgets, local newsrooms must now invest in legal resources, trauma support and protective training. He attributes part of this shift to the rise of social media, which has enabled political actors to sidestep traditional journalism entirely
‘Every side in any given social conflict in America used to need journalists to put their perspective out there,’ he said. Now, instead of being essential intermediaries, ‘the value of a journalist to politicians in particular … has changed from being an essential messenger to being a vehicle for communicating fear and terror’.
‘Part of our job as news professionals is to recognise that and to refuse to cooperate,’ he said. ‘We refuse to cooperate by … (making) sure people get safety training. We refuse to cooperate by holding law enforcement accountable, by laying out lines of accountability and taking legal action when our colleagues are arrested or abused.’
‘We take responsibility by advocating for the crucial role of the First Amendment and the crucial role of journalists at this pivotal point in American history.’
- This article was first published here
