The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against a group of protesters and journalists who alleged that federal agents retaliated against them for exercising their First Amendment rights. The court's decision, issued on November 10, 2026, overturns a lower court's preliminary injunction that had restricted the use of non-lethal crowd-control measures by law enforcement during protests outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland, Oregon.

This ruling affects the five plaintiffs involved in the case, including Jack Dickinson, known as the "Portland Chicken," and other individuals who claimed they were targeted with tear gas and pepper balls while protesting. The court's decision is significant as it underscores the balance between law enforcement's duty to maintain order and the public's right to protest.

In the case, Dickinson and his co-plaintiffs argued that their First Amendment rights were violated when federal agents used crowd-control measures against them during protests. They claimed that the government specifically targeted them for their peaceful dissent. The case, formally known as Dickinson v. Trump, was filed under docket number 26-1609 and reached the Ninth Circuit after a lower court granted a preliminary injunction against the government.

Background

The plaintiffs in this case are a group of peaceful protesters and independent journalists who have been actively opposing the federal government's immigration policies. They allege that during protests at the ICE facility in Portland, they were subjected to excessive force by law enforcement, including the use of tear gas and pepper balls. The protests have been marked by both peaceful demonstrations and significant unrest, with some participants engaging in violent acts.

The conflict escalated between June 2025 and February 2026, during which at least 150 protests occurred at the Portland ICE facility. While many protesters exercised their rights peacefully, others engaged in unlawful behavior, including vandalism and assaults on federal agents. The plaintiffs claim that they were harmed during these protests, despite their nonviolent intentions.

The case was brought against Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President, and Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, among others. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the government from using non-lethal crowd-control measures unless there was an imminent threat of physical harm, arguing that such measures were a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit panel, led by Judge Kenneth K. Lee, vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and provisional class certification. The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim. The ruling stated, "The plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim," and emphasized that law enforcement is permitted to use non-lethal force to restore order in chaotic situations.

The court criticized the lower court's assumption that non-lethal munitions could only be used in response to imminent threats of physical harm. Instead, the Ninth Circuit clarified that law enforcement may use such measures to address "imminent lawlessness" and that the plaintiffs were likely collateral damage in the government's efforts to manage violent protests.

Additionally, the court deemed the preliminary injunction overbroad, stating that it improperly granted relief to individuals beyond the five named plaintiffs and restricted law enforcement's ability to respond to chaotic protest situations. The court noted, "The injunction is overbroad and unworkable," and emphasized that it exceeded the district court's authority.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future protests and the use of crowd-control measures by law enforcement. It reaffirms the government's ability to use non-lethal force in situations where public safety is at risk, particularly during large and potentially violent protests. The decision could deter similar lawsuits from individuals claiming retaliation for their protest activities, as the court has set a high bar for proving First Amendment violations in the context of law enforcement responses.

The ruling also highlights the tension between the right to protest and the need for law enforcement to maintain order, especially in situations where protests may escalate into violence. It underscores the importance of context and the behavior of protestors in determining the appropriateness of law enforcement responses.

What's Next

The plaintiffs may seek to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision to a higher court, although details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The case may also influence other pending litigation related to the rights of protesters and the use of force by law enforcement in similar contexts.