The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 21, 2026, affirming a lower court's decision that dismissed claims from two photojournalists who were injured while covering a protest in Kenosha County, Wisconsin. Alyssa Schukar and Scott Olson alleged that law enforcement officers used excessive force against them during the unrest. This ruling is significant as it addresses the balance between law enforcement's crowd control measures and the rights of journalists to document events.
The case arose from a protest on August 25, 2020, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, which sparked widespread unrest. Schukar and Olson, who were working for major media outlets, claimed they were struck by foam baton rounds fired by officers while they were documenting the protest. The court's decision impacts not only the plaintiffs but also raises questions about the treatment of journalists in volatile situations.
Background
Alyssa Schukar and Scott Olson were covering protests outside the Kenosha County Courthouse in the wake of Jacob Blake's shooting. The protests began peacefully but escalated into violence, with some demonstrators attacking law enforcement. Officers from various jurisdictions, including Deputy Steven Robakowski and Officer Ryan Jacobs, were deployed to manage the situation using crowd control measures.
During the protest, Schukar and Olson were injured by foam baton rounds, which they believed were intentionally aimed at them due to their role as journalists. They filed a lawsuit against Robakowski and Jacobs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, leading to the appeal to the Seventh Circuit.
The Ruling
The Seventh Circuit, led by Judge Scudder, upheld the district court's ruling, stating that Schukar and Olson did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. The court noted that while the journalists were engaged in protected First Amendment activity, there was no evidence that the officers intentionally targeted them. The opinion stated, "We see no evidence allowing a finding that Deputy Robakowski or Officer Jacobs targeted Schukar or Olson and not violent protesters."
Regarding the Fourth Amendment claim, the court concluded that the officers did not use excessive force, as the injuries were not a result of intentional targeting. The judges stated that the accidental nature of the injuries meant that Schukar and Olson were not 'seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the officers.
Impact
This ruling is significant for journalists and their ability to cover protests and civil unrest. It reinforces the legal protections for law enforcement when using crowd control measures, particularly in chaotic situations. The court's decision clarifies that accidental injuries to journalists do not necessarily constitute a violation of their constitutional rights, which may deter similar claims in the future.
The ruling also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by journalists in documenting protests, especially when tensions run high. While the court acknowledged the critical role of the press, it emphasized the need for evidence of intentional targeting to prove claims of retaliation or excessive force.
What's Next
Schukar and Olson may consider further legal options, including seeking a rehearing or exploring other avenues for appeal. However, the court's ruling sets a precedent that may limit the success of similar claims in the future. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending.