⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears oral argument in Dickinson v. Trump. At its core, this case asks whether federal law enforcement officers violated the First Amendment when they used tear gas, pepper balls, and other crowd-control munitions against protesters and journalists outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Oregon. The district court below had issued a preliminary injunction restricting the government's use of force, finding that officers engaged in a pattern and practice of retaliating against protected speech. But this same panel had already put that injunction on hold while the appeal proceeded, over a partial dissent from Judge de Alba. That was an interim assessment, not a ruling on the merits — which is what today's argument is about. Today, the government argues the injunction should be vacated because the district court applied the wrong legal framework, treating any use of force as improper unless officers faced an imminent physical threat. The plaintiffs counter that the extensive factual record supports the district court's findings: repeated, disproportionate uses of force against people not posing a threat, all reviewed and approved up the chain of command. The case turns on whether law enforcement was responding to lawlessness and obstruction, or silencing dissent. A three-judge panel — Judges Kenneth Lee, Ana de Alba, and Eric Tung — will decide.

Dickinson v. Trump (No. 26-1609) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 10, 2026.