⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears oral argument in Reach Community Development versus United States Department of Homeland Security. The case asks whether the federal government violated the Fifth Amendment when federal officers used tear gas and other chemical irritants outside an immigration facility and the gas drifted into a neighbouring apartment building. One fact shapes everything here: the plaintiffs are not the demonstrators. They are residents of that apartment complex, together with the organisation and affiliated companies that own and operate it — the district court wrote that this case is not about the rights of protesters. They obtained a preliminary injunction limiting the use of chemical irritants near the building. The government appealed, and a motions panel stayed the injunction in full — and stayed the district court proceedings as well — in a published order that already took a view of the legal question. Now a merits panel considers whether to vacate the injunction outright. At the heart of the appeal is a doctrinal question: does a substantive due process claim challenging executive action require both conscience-shocking conduct and a violation of a fundamental right deeply rooted in history and tradition, or is shocking the conscience alone sufficient? The district court found likely violations under both tests, but the parties sharply contest which framework applies.

Reach Community Development v. United States Department of Homeland Security (No. 26-1575) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 10, 2026.