Maryland Attorney General Joins Multistate Effort Challenging Federal Force Against Protesters and Journalists

Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has joined a coalition of 17 state attorneys general in filing a legal brief that challenges the federal government’s use of force against peaceful demonstrators and members of the press. The amicus brief was submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of a lawsuit brought by the Los Angeles Press Club and other plaintiffs. The lawsuit aims to prevent the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from employing crowd control tactics that the plaintiffs argue are dangerous and infringe upon constitutional rights.

The legal filing addresses incidents that occurred during largely peaceful protests in Los Angeles, which were sparked by widespread immigration raids. According to the coalition of attorneys general, federal agents deployed crowd control measures such as tear gas, pepper balls, and rubber bullets indiscriminately. These actions allegedly resulted in injuries to peaceful protesters, legal observers, and journalists. The attorneys general contend that these tactics not only pose a danger to civilians but also violate the First Amendment rights of those exercising their right to protest and the media’s right to report. Furthermore, they argue that these methods were ineffective in de-escalating public unrest.

The lawsuit, initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, sought an injunction to halt the DHS’s use of specific crowd control weapons and techniques at protests related to immigration enforcement. The plaintiffs asserted that the federal agency’s practices endangered civilian safety and contravened established legal precedents regarding law enforcement conduct. The district court had previously granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, a decision that the DHS has appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The amicus brief filed by the state attorneys general urges the appellate court to uphold the district court’s decision. The brief outlines key arguments, emphasizing that crowd control munitions should be used only as a last resort, when other options have been exhausted. The attorneys general assert that the deployment of these weapons can unduly restrict First Amendment freedoms, lead to serious injuries, and potentially intensify rather than reduce unrest at demonstrations. They also advocate for law enforcement to actively protect journalists’ access to and safety at protests, rather than subjecting them to crowd control measures or attacks. The filing further suggests that the DHS practices in question are not isolated incidents but rather indicative of a broader pattern of federal actions linked to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

In addition to Attorney General Brown, the attorneys general participating in the amicus brief represent California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Article by Mel Anara, based upon information from the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.

---