A federal district court in Los Angeles has granted class action certification in a landmark First Amendment case against the Department of Homeland Security, extending legal protections to a broad class of people who peacefully record or photograph DHS immigration enforcement operations in Southern California. The certification extends the protections sought by this lawsuit to people who record or photograph DHS immigration enforcement operations.
What changed
U.S. District Judge Hernán Vera found the plaintiffs, including the Los Angeles Press Club and the News Guild, had sufficiently shown the Department of Homeland Security has “a policy of treating the recording of their agents as an unlawful threat that may be responded to with force,” and granted class certification to anyone who peacefully films or photographs “immigration enforcement and removal operations, or protests of those operations” in the Central District of California, which covers much of Southern California, including Los Angeles and Orange County.
This ruling builds on earlier victories in the same case. One year ago, federal law enforcement brutalized protesters calling for an end to the indiscriminate immigration raids and the press who attempted to report on the events. In September 2025, Judge Vera had issued a preliminary injunction barring DHS from retaliating against journalists, legal observers, and protesters. The class certification now expands that injunction to cover all similarly situated individuals in the jurisdiction.
In his ruling granting class certification, Vera wrote the plaintiffs had sufficiently shown “the existence of a policy within DHS that treats the mere public recording of its agents as a threat that may be viewed as criminal in nature and responded to with force at the scene.” He also found the plaintiffs had shown all class members had suffered similar injuries as a result of the same conduct.
Why it matters
For immigration practitioners and their clients in Southern California, class certification significantly strengthens the legal position of anyone who wishes to observe, record, or report on DHS immigration enforcement operations without fear of retaliation. The ruling establishes that DHS cannot:
- Use force against individuals for peacefully filming or photographing enforcement operations
- Arrest, threaten, or physically retaliate against legal observers, journalists, or bystanders for documenting federal action
- Treat recording or documentation as an obstruction of justice or criminal activity
This has direct implications for removal defense strategy. Practitioners can now cite the preliminary injunction and class certification order when advising clients in detention on their rights, when representing individuals in bond hearings, or when documenting alleged DHS misconduct as part of a motion to suppress or deliberate-indifference claim. The class status means the protections apply broadly—not just to the named parties—so the injunction can be invoked in multiple forums and contexts.
Additionally, the ruling is precedentially significant within the Ninth Circuit, which has already affirmed the underlying preliminary injunction on appeal. Federal courts in other circuits have also upheld the First Amendment right to record law enforcement, strengthening the constitutional foundation for this protection across the country.
Way forward
If you represent clients in the Central District of California (which includes Los Angeles and Orange County):
-
In bond hearings and removal proceedings: Cite the preliminary injunction and class certification order if a client or witness was threatened, arrested, or injured while observing or filming DHS operations. The ruling supports claims of witness intimidation or interference with the client’s right to gather evidence.
-
In detention cases: If a client reports being threatened or physically attacked while filming or simply present during an enforcement action, document the conduct and preserve all evidence. The order provides a legal framework for pursuing claims of retaliation or excessive force.
-
In motion practice: If challenging statements or conduct by ICE or CBP agents, reference the court’s factual finding that DHS has a policy of treating public recording as a threat warranting forceful response. This supports arguments about institutional indifference or pattern-and-practice violations.
-
For fact development: Encourage clients, witnesses, and community members to safely document enforcement operations in Southern California. The class certification and injunction provide legal protection for doing so. Remind clients that while the law protects observation and recording, they must not physically interfere with enforcement activity and should comply with lawful orders to move.
-
Monitor appeal developments: While this order is currently in effect, DHS is contesting aspects of the case at the Ninth Circuit. Stay alert to any subsequent appellate developments, though the appellate court has already affirmed the preliminary injunction once.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and highly fact-specific. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney to discuss how this ruling applies to your specific situation. This summary reflects the order as of the published date; policy and case law change without notice, and you should verify all citations against the primary court order and applicable case law in your jurisdiction before relying on them in any proceeding.